Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITIES OF DURHAM AND NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Maintenance Allocation, Monmouthshire

Mr. LI. Williams: asked the Minister of Health what allocation for expenditure on minor works and maintenance, respectively, has been made for the coming financial year to the group management committtees in respect of hospitals in Monmouthshire; and how this compares with the allocation for the previous financial year.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): Allocations are not made for individual items of revenue expenditure. The board has so far approved expenditure of £6,250 next year, compared with £4,006 this year, on capital works costing under £3,000.

Mr. Williams: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although the increased figure will be received with much approval by those who are interested in hospital services in Monmouthshire, in view of the fact that we have so many old-established hospitals in Monmouthshire and shall have to wait a considerable time before the consideration of the new base hospitals, much capital expenditure is needed in respect of the old-established hospitals?

Mr. Braine: Yes. I am sure that considerations of that kind are very much in the mind of the regional hospital board, and it has certain reserves.

St. John's Hospital, Keighley

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Health what was the estimated life, at the time of their construction, of the huts now used as geriatric wards at St. John's Hospital, Keighley.

Mr. Braine: No such estimate can be traced.

Mr. Worsley: Is my hon. Friend aware that these huts were erected as a temporary provision during the war? Does not he agree that they should be replaced as soon as possible?

Mr. Braine: There is no reason why any definite term should be given to the life of buildings of this type, provided that they have been properly erected and maintained. Since the appointed day a modern heating system has been installed. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that in a matter of this kind we must look to the future, and I am writing to him.

Mr. Worsley: asked the Minister of Health how long it is intended to use as geriatric wards the huts at St. John's Hospital, Keighley.

Mr. Braine: Until replaced in a new district general hospital.

Mr. Worsley: Yes, but can my hon. Friend tell me when this will be?

Mr. Braine: I would prefer my hon. Friend to wait until he has seen my letter.

Wolverhampton (Maternity Beds)

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the number of hospital beds for maternity cases in Wolverhampton is adequate; and if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve the situation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): No, Sir; plans are well advanced for a new maternity unit of 146 beds at New Cross. Meanwhile, 13 more beds were opened last year at the Women's Hospital, and additional delivery rooms will shortly be provided there.

Mr. Baird: Do I take it that these are all maternity beds?

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Denbigh Hospital

Mr. LI. Williams: asked the Minister of Health what economies in pocket money for patients, cinema shows and the use of butter have been carried out at Denbigh Hospital during the last six months.

Mr. Powell: None, Sir.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that one trade union, which is responsible for a large number of employees in the hospital service, has conducted an investigation into the implied allegations in my Question and

that its findings do not correspond with what he has said?

Mr. Powell: I am sorry about that, but my Answer is correct.

Handicapped Children, Derbyshire

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that on 31st December, 1962, there were 29 sub-normal and severely sub-normal children and young persons in the County Borough of Derby and in the Parliamentary constituency of Derby, South, who were in need of admission to hospital, that five of them had been on the waiting list for more than 9½ years, two others for more than 8 years, and ten others for periods varying from 4 to 8 years; how many of these children and young persons have since been admitted to hospital; and whether he will make a statement about those still remaining on the waiting list.

Mr. Powell: My information is twenty-eight, two, three and eleven respectively; nine have since been admitted; the list is now eighteen, including ten non-urgent.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it a fact that on 31st December 22 cases were urgent? Is the Minister aware that in recent months one mother has died from the strain of looking after her handicapped child and other children and one handicapped child has been killed?

Mr. Powell: I have not those facts, but I will take note of them if the right hon. Member will send me the evidence. I think it is a matter for satisfaction that the waiting list has been almost halved in the last three months. This shows the contribution which the large number of additional beds now being opened in the Sheffield area is making to a solution of the problem.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are still many children who have been on the waiting list for more than four years? One of my constituents, Janet Mills, has been on the waiting list for twelve years and there is no hope of her admission to hospital at present, her father is informed. Is it not a very grave matter that there should be these immensely long waiting times?

Mr. Powell: I should make it clear that these are not in the ordinary sense of the term hospital waiting lists. They are lists from local authorities. The girl to whom the right hon. Member referred was only recently transferred to the urgent part of the list.

Boston Hospital

Sir John Maitland: asked the Minister of Health when the first part of the project for Boston Hospital will go out to tender.

Mr. Powell: 1965.

Sir J. Maitland: We have been waiting rather a long time for this hospital—I think it was mooted eight years ago. Can my right hon. Friend be a little more specific? Can he say whether it is early in 1965, or when will it be?

Mr. Powell: As early as I can make it in 1965, but I should not like to be more specific at this stage. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in touch with him about this matter for a long time. The problem which arose was that the design which resulted from a competition had to be almost completely redrawn. In the course of that it was decided to increase both the size of the hospital and the facilities. So I hope that Boston will get a better and larger hospital, although somewhat later.

Hospital Staffing (Deputation)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health when he received a deputation from the appropriate staff side of the Whitley Council on hospital staffing and allied matters; what was the purpose of their visit; and when he will make a statement on the action he proposes to take.

Mr. Powell: Last Friday; I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the agreed statement issued after the meeting.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agreed statements do not get one anywhere? Would he not bear in mind that all these deputations that have been to the Minister have been on two or three specific points? When is he to make a full statement and take action on the pressures being brought by these deputations so that certain definite decisions will flow from them?

Mr. Powell: I do not share my hon. Friend's objection to agreed statements. In fact, I think that agreed statements are sometimes preferable to disagreed statements. I have been able to show those who came to see me on this question that hospital authorities will, during this financial year, have additional spending money and that they are getting what help I can give them in laying that out smoothly and effectively.

North Staffordshire

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with plans to extend and improve the hospital services in North Staffordshire.

Mr. Braine: Four of the main schemes comprised in the plan for a major district general hospital at Stoke are now in progress or at an advanced stage of preparation.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "in progress"? Is he aware of complaints on the spot that in fact very little progress has been made, although these plans were agreed a long time ago? Will he be a little more specific about how much progress has been made?

Mr. Braine: Yes. There are four main schemes for North Staffordshire, including an accident unit with operating theatre suites and casualty wards at the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary. Completion is expected in the spring of 1964. There is a central out-patients department to serve hospitals at Stoke; tenders are due on 19th April. A new maternity unit, a boiler house and staff accommodation at the City General Hospital; working drawings are in preparation and are expected to be completed in the autumn. Building work will start in early 1964. For neuro-surgical and neurological wards in the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, working drawings are now being examined in the department with a view to authorising the board to go to tender.
There are a number of minor schemes, including a cobalt therapy unit at the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary. This is expected to be completed by July, 1963. Progress, I should have thought the hon. Member would agree, is very satisfactory indeed.

Medical Staff (Travelling Expenses)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what was the total cost to the National Health Service of the home-to-hospital travelling expenses of part-time consultants and senior hospital medical and dental officers, for each year since 31st December, 1959.

Mr. Braine: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he increasingly gives me answers like that? In view of the fact that both the Royal Commission and the Kindersley Committee said that these payments are an anomaly, will not he take steps to obtain the information and to give it to the House? Will not he seek to remove this anomaly?

Mr. Braine: No, Sir. The Royal Commission recommended that the continued payment of these expenses to those whose rights had been reserved should be reviewed in due course by the Review Body. The Review Body says in its Report,
We agree with the Royal Commission that these payments are anomalous but we note that they are confined to those who were receiving them on 31st December, 1959 and that they will die out gradually in any event. We see no reason at the moment to recommend any alteration in these arrangements.

Mr. Pavitt: It is costing the taxpayer money. If we recognise that there is an anomaly, is it not right to find the information? Is not this a dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister in not obtaining this information and giving it to us?

Mr. Braine: There is no question of dereliction of duty on the part of the Ministry. The hon. Member should know, and I am surprised that he does not know, that this was part of an agreement reached with the profession.

North-Eastern Metropolitan Region (Admissions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how far the waiting period has been reduced for patients needing operations, particularly in the North Eastern Metropolitan Hospital Board region.

Mr. Braine: The position varies for different specialties. No general fall is observable.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that there are several cases of patients suffering from very painful afflictions who have to wait for six to nine months? Can he hold out any hope of better or earlier treatment being given to such patients?

Mr. Braine: In certain specialties there is a long back-log but overall no general fall is observable. My right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to the drive which hospital authorities have been asked to make to eliminate the back-log. Advice was given to hospitals on 14th March describing methods which have been found effective in reducing the back-log of cases.

Lowestoft (Maternity Beds)

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are only six maternity beds available for the Lowestoft district with a catchment area of 60,000 population, and that this is well below the national average; and whether he will take steps to bring about an improvement.

Mr. Braine: Seven more beds are being provided at Great Yarmouth General Hospital which also serves this population, making twenty-seven in all. Plans envisage seventy-four eventually.

Mr. Prior: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Does he realise that Great Yarmouth is quite a long way from Lowestoft and the communications are bad? Can he hold out any hope of more beds being provided at Lowestoft in the near future?

Mr. Braine: I note my hon. Friend's vigorous defence of his constituency interests. As he knows, there is long-term provision in the Hospital Plan for more maternity beds at Lowestoft. The plan is not rigid. It is revised from time to time to take account of changing circumstances.

Orthopaedic Beds, East Anglia

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a further investigation into the position of orthopaedic beds for the area covered by the Norwich, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth Hospital Management Committee with a view to taking steps to bring about a rapid improvement.

Mr. Braine: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 28th January; the additional consultant has now been appointed.

Mr. Prior: When is the additional consultant likely to take up work? Is my hon. Friend aware that East Anglia feels that it is being neglected both in this regard and in regard to the matter I raised in my previous Question? Can the East Anglian Regional Board be pushed a little to help the East Coast more than it is at the moment?

Mr. Braine: The consultant will take up his duties in May. I note what my hon. Friend said in the second part of his supplementary question. I think that what I said earlier covers that—that the Plan is not inflexible, that it is revised from time to time, and that there is no reason why full account should not be taken of the changing circumstances of the region.

Mr. Hilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the area covered by these hospitals includes a very large rural population who consider that they are entitled to far more of this type of bed in these hospitals? In view of the difficulties experienced in getting to hospital, will not the hon. Gentleman have another look at this to see if he can expedite the provision of more beds in these hospitals?

Mr. Braine: Yes.

North Staffordshire (Maternity Beds)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the plans for increasing the number of maternity beds in north Staffordshire, with particular reference to the provision of a new maternity hospital.

Mr. Braine: Work on a new maternity unit of 173 beds at the City General Hospital is expected to start early next year.

Dr. Stross: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how long it is thought it will take before it is completed?

Mr. Braine: It will take about two and a half years.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Constant Attendance (Paralysed Persons)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Health whether people who, though so paralysed that they cannot be registered as available for work, are able to leave hospital and live at home, may receive constant attendance from the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 25th March to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if these terribly unfortunate people are able to go home it is much better for them and much cheaper for the State? Is it not possible to provide them with the essential constant attendance allowance?

Mr. Powell: If my hon. Friend is concerned with a money allowance, that is not a question for me; but it would be quite impracticable for the community to provide constant care and attendance outside the framework of the hospital service. This does not diminish one's admiration for the people who do live at home under great handicap.

Lord Balniel: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps rather unsatisfactory that young people who could be at home if they received a constant attendance allowance should have to live out their lives in chronic sick hospital wards? Cannot my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

Mr. Powell: The number of young chronic sick is fortunately relatively very small. But I cannot believe that it could be practicable or effective for the community to provide constant care and attendance except through the hospital service.

Drugs

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to check the distribution of Imipramine, Marzine, and any other drugs whose use by pregnant women may lead to foetal abnormalities similar to those caused by the use of thalidomide.

Mr. Powell: Imipramine is on prescription only. A warning label is being attached to Marzine, which is under consideration by the Poisons Board.

Mr. Driberg: Have any supplies of these drugs been distributed in circumstances which could lead to anything like the thalidomide tragedy? Is the Minister satisfied that there could not be a similar situation?

Mr. Powell: I should make it clear that it has not been established that either of these drugs can in fact produce these effects in the human foetus, but in general it is most desirable that in the early stages of pregnancy any drug should be taken only on medical advice.

Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that many drugs on some animals can bring about abnormalities in the foetus—that aspirin in big doses in mice could bring about abnormalities—but it does not follow that they would affect human beings?

Mr. Powell: Yes, sir.

Mr. Driberg: Was not thalidomide distributed on medical advice?

Mr. Powell: Yes, but the evidence in regard to thalidomide is entirely different from the evidence in regard to these drugs.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the control of medicines, drugs and poisons, and for such control to be vested in the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Powell: I expect advice on this shortly from the Joint Sub-Committee on Safety of Drugs.

Dr. Stross: When the Minister has received this reply, will he bear in mind that a medicine is either quite inert and therefore useless or is potentially a poison? Will he therefore put an end to this rather absurd anomaly of allowing the Home Office to have charge of a field of activity which he himself should be supervising completely?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member's supplementary question draws attention to one of the many difficulties in this field

which makes it particularly advisable to me to await the guidance of the subcommittee.

Surgical Footwear (Snow Boots)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange for snow boots, capable of protecting surgical boots, to be made available to handicapped people under the National Health Service.

Mr. Braine: No, Sir.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no covering snow boots available in this country? Is he aware that they can be obtained from Canada? Would it not be easier for my hon. Friend to arrange for their importation so that these people in winters such as the one we have recently had should not be absolutely housebound? Why just say "No"? Why not say, "I will have a look at the matter"? Come on, get on with something.

Mr. Braine: I always say "No" with the greatest reluctance to my hon. Friend. The fact is that the shape of most surgical boots is such that normal snow boots or overshoes could not be used. My information is that surgical boots usually provide better protection than normal footwear because they are waterproof and better support is given to the ankle fitting. If my hon. Friend has any special information or a particular case she wishes to bring to my attention I shall certainly look into it.

Health Service Employees (Dismissal Appeals)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Health if he will alter the procedure for appeals against dismissal by employees of the Health Service authorities in such a manner as to ensure that the members of the appeals committee are all drawn from regions other than that in which the employee concerned was serving at the time.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Whilst appreciating the financial and administrative objections to this proposal, would not my right hon. Friend agree that these


appeals do not take place very often, but when they do they are matters of very great moment to those appealing? Would he also agree that the more serious the case may be the more certain it is that under the present regulations those people who are the members of these appeals committees must have heard a lot of gossip, generally one-sided, about the case in question?

Mr. Powell: I share the anxiety of my hon. and gallant Friend that in these matters justice should appear to be done as well as be done. The present rule is that no one can be on an appeals committee who has been involved in any way in the events or discussions leading to the decision which is under appeal. I think that in itself is a very big safeguard. There is the further right of representation to the regional board and to me, so I feel that there is every safeguard to the employee.

Lung Cancer (Smoking)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health how long he has been negotiating with the joint censorship committee of the poster advertising industry regarding its ban on his posters about smoking and lung cancer.

Mr. Powell: About four months.

Mr. Lipton: While it is, of course, generally admitted that the right hon. Gentleman is not the least courageous of Her Majesty's Ministers, will he tell us how much longer he is going to put up with this nonsense? He has already described the attitude of the poster people as "silly", but now it is mischievous as well as silly. When is he going to put his foot down on this matter?

Mr. Powell: I think the matter will be put into proportion when I point out that this is only one of many posters issued by my Department to which objection has been taken and that these posters are primarily for display not on hoardings, nor are they primarily suitable for them. Nearly 1 million have already been issued, so I do not think the campaign is at all seriously suffering, but I should like to bring this matter to a conclusion in one way or another.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: While discussing the matter with the poster censorship

committee, will the Minister not also talk to Ministers connected with nationalised industries to make sure that they will display Government publicity of any nature, particularly on poster sites controlled by the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Powell: That is not a question for me.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health if he will send the hon. Member for Swindon a representative selection of the publicity material, including posters, devised by his Department, drawing attention to the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister explain why this publicity makes use of no modern media of communication? Why does he do no Press advertising? Why does he not use television commercials? Is he aware that the way in which he does this publicity gives the impression that he is not interested in the subject at all seriously?

Mr. Powell: If so, it is a false impression. This is a genuine campaign which is primarily the responsibility of the health and education authorities. I am sure that they must use the methods which make a steady and consistent appeal primarily to young people. For that purpose, posters, all kinds of educational material, and films, existing and in preparation, are used.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Why did the Minister say on an earlier Question that it was not his duty to consult his colleagues who answer here for the nationalised industries and to ensure that those great industries give maximum publicity to this most important matter?

Mr. Powell: The answer is that the result of the consultation is not for me.

Mr. Paget: Is there not a certain ambivalence between the Ministry of Health and the Treasury here, in that whilst the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discourage the sale of poison the Treasury finds it too paying?

Mr. Powell: No. This is a Government policy supported by the entire Government.

Doctors (Private Practice)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what estimate has been made of the total amount received by general practitioners in the National Health Service from private practice income for each year since January, 1960; and what steps he proposes to take to secure a firm estimate on this matter for the next three years.

Mr. Braine: None. Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister recall that when the £2 million was removed from the general practitioners' pool the Royal Commission advised that there should be a review of the situation in case of an increase? Is he aware that the B.M.A. estimate that the figure is nearer £6 million? If this is increasing, should not the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the alteration in private earnings since 1960 has been substantial in the sense indicated in the appropriate paragraph in the Royal Commission Report. The Review Body says that it agrees with this view.

Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in regard to the fees prescribed by the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine in the operation of Section 2 (3) (c) of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act; and if he will introduce legislation amending this Act to provide that this body can demand a single registration fee only instead of an annual fee as at present.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. Legislation would not be required.

Dr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough, however, to comment on this situation and to advise the profession to the effect that the medical profession has always considered that the single registration fee to the General Medical Council has been quite sufficient for registration and that it is against the liberal spirit of a profession that a compulsory annual payment should be insisted upon?

Mr. Powell: My comment would be this—that the Council is under a statutory duty to prescribe fees which will defray its reasonable expenses. If it fixed a single entry or life fee it would have to be very much higher than the initial fee which it prescribes under its present arrangements.

Venereal Disease

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health to what extent the incidence of venereal disease has increased or decreased during the past five years and 25 years, respectively, and in particular among young people; and what further steps have been taken to deal with this matter.

Mr. Braine: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, broadly speaking, it shows an increase or a decrease? In the information which he is kindly to send to me does he discriminate between the two major kinds of venereal disease? Does he give information about the incidence in local parts of the country and what is being done in those areas?

Mr. Braine: I am happy to say that the trend in the incidence of syphilis has been downwards, although there was a small rise between 1959 and 1961. Information about age groups is not available, but it is known that there has been a considerable increase recently in gonorrhoea among young people. I will look at the question of localities and see whether we can include that information. If not, I will write to the hon. Member to see how best we can resolve that query.

Mr. Marsh: Is not one of the most disturbing features of the problem the fact that the rise in the total figures of venereal disease has been consistent for several years and is, I understand, higher than it was at the worst period of the war? If that is so, will the Minister tell us—while recognising all the difficulties—whether the Government have any change to announce in their policy or any new method of trying to control what is becoming an extremely serious social problem in relation to young people?

Mr. Braine: I cannot endorse what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his supplementary question. It would be as well to await the publication of the figures. We are actively engaged in improving the facilities for diagnosis and treatment, and a survey of V.D. clinics is being undertaken by my Department at present. Studies and inquiries are being undertaken by the British Medical Association and the British Co-operative Clinical Group of V.D. consultants. A long-term inquiry is being undertaken by the Central Council for Health Education. My right hon. Friend's Standing Medical Advisory Committee is considering the problem and is keeping it under review. The matter is actively engaging the attention of all concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: I do not know why this information could not have been given to me in the first place.
Following are the figures:
Complete information is not available, but the total numbers of new cases at clinics in 1937, 1957 and 1961, respectively, were for syphilis 13,234, 4,977, and 4,442 and for gonorrhoea 37,037, 24,381 and 37,107; the ages of the cases are not available; continued health education and contact tracing, and the further improvement of facilities for diagnosis and treatment.

South-West Regional Board (Appointments)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health if he will seek to amend the National Health Service Act 1946 so that health authorities will be required to nominate men experienced in health administration for appointment to regional hospital boards.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there is provision in the Act of 1948 for consultation with local health authorities? That consultation implied that the name sent on by the local authority would be accepted by the Minister with others from whom he could select his committee. Is he aware that the Bristol authority has sent names since 1959 and that not one of them has been selected? Will he give consideration to the nomination of these men, who have had practical experience in the region, for selection for this committee?

Mr. Powell: I cannot accept that consultation conveys the obligation to appoint

the persons nominated because many more are nominated than the size of the boards. In this region there are twelve local health authorities concerned, and it is not only the local health authorities whose interests require to be reflected in the composition of a board. What I can say is that the requirements and the recommendations of local health authorities are most seriously considered in working out the constitution of a board.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the Minister bear in mind that the complaint raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) is shared by some other parts of the country, such as the part which I represent?

Mr. Powell: That is not surprising, since there are many more local health authorities in the region than can normally find representation on the regional board at any one time.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health if he will appoint to membership of the regional hospital board men whose names have been submitted to him by the Bristol health committee.

Mr. Powell: This is not excluded.

Mr. Awbery: The Bristol health authority is the largest in the South-West Region. It has sent names to him year by year. He has not selected from these men. Will he give an undertaking that some regard will be paid to the names which are forwarded to him by the largest authority in the region?

Mr. Powell: I certainly give an undertaking that I do have regard to names which are submitted to me by all authorities whom I consult, but I cannot bind myself to appoint nominees of any particular authority.

Mr. Awbery: There has been persistent rejection.

Muscular Dystrophy

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Health how many people were suffering from severe muscular dystrophy at the latest available date.

Mr. Braine: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are at least


50,000 of these cases in this country? Is he quite satisfied that his Department is doing everything to help these people and cater for their needs? Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much is being spent on research into this disease? Does he not agree that we are relying too much on moneys provided by voluntary organisations from the sale of milk bottle tops and silver paper to provide the funds to carry out some kind of research? Cannot the Ministry do more than it is doing?

Mr. Braine: I would not altogether accept the figure that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There are various estimates of the incidence of this disease rising from 3,000 or 4,000 to about 20,000, but I am not in a position to comment on them. Most sufferers from the disease are not in-patients at hospitals. The trouble is that it is a hereditary disease. At present treatment is almost entirely palliative. The answer therefore to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that research is proceeding into the causes of this disease under the Medical Research Council and at a number of hospitals. The Muscular Dystrophy Group of the Central Council for the Care of Cripples is also supporting research.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Apprenticeships, Dartford

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Labour how many apprenticeships were available in or near Dart-ford to boys in 1962; and what percentage this represents of school-leavers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): Two hundred and five, or 33·8 per cent, of Dartford boys who entered employment in 1962 obtained apprenticeships in Dartford or within daily travelling distance.

Mr. Irving: Is this not still a very low percentage showing how limited are the opportunities for getting this kind of training? What early steps does the Minister propose to take to increase the number of apprenticeships in this area?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is true that this percentage is slightly below the Great Britain percentage of 36·2. The percentage of apprenticeships, as the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, depends very much on the type of industries in the area and whether they are the apprentice-employing type of industries. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is most anxious to urge industry everywhere to increase training opportunities of all kind including apprenticeships. That is the aim of the recently published Government White Paper.

Mr. J. Wells: Will my hon. Friend give some figures at the earliest possible opportunity about the apprenticeship schemes in the paper-making industry, which are of great importance to this part and to the whole of Kent?

Mr. Whitelaw: If my hon. Friend will table that question, I shall be very pleased to answer it.

Youth Employment Service (New Towns)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour what special provision his Department has made to strengthen the Youth Employment Service in new town areas where his Department is still responsible for its administration.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): Two new towns, Dawley and Livingston, will lie in areas where the Service is run by my Department, but work on them has not yet begun. As their development proceeds, I shall keep the strength of the Service under regular review to ensure that staff levels match needs.

Miss Quennell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the new town areas the population structure per 1,000 is different from that generally found throughout the country? The number of school leavers is far greater per 1,000. Will he bear this in mind when these new towns materialise?

Mr. Hare: Certainly I will. The considerations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention have been considered by the local education authorities which are providing the Youth Employment Services in the existing new towns.

I.L.O. Training Centre, Turin

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour if his Department is associated with the establishment in Turin by the International Labour Organisation of the international centre for advanced training.

Mr. Hare: An officer of my Department is a member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office. The Governing Body has agreed to open this centre if sufficient funds are available.

Miss Qnennell: Is it the policy of my right hon. Friend to support this centre?

Mr. Hare: Certainly. We shall consider what our attitude will be when—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] There are very considerable financial implications here. It would be quite irresponsible of me to give an answer until those financial implications have been fully considered.

Pontefract and Castleford

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls of those that left school at Christmas are Still registered as unemployed at the Pontefract and Castleford employment exchanges in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. Whitelaw: Thirteen boys and girls out of 384 who left school at Christmas in the Pontefract area, and 10 out of 318 in Castleford were registered for employment at the Youth Employment Bureaux on 11th March.

Mr. Harper: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these figures are too high in an industrial area? How many of these children have returned to school having failed to find employment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not give the hon. Gentleman the answer to the last part of his supplementary question. As to the first part, any figures which show any school leaver still unemployed are too high. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought that was a fairly obvious statement. Nevertheless, it is a sign of considerable progress that the number is as limited as it is. In fact, there are no summer or last year Easter school leavers still on the

register at Pontefract, and only two summer and one Easter school leaver at Castleford. This shows that placing has continued, though more slowly than we would like.

Dinnington, Maltby and Rotherham

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls left school at Christmas 1962 in Dinnington, Maltby and Rotherham; and how many are registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges in each town.

Mr. Whitelaw: Four hundred and seventy boys and girls left school at Christmas in Rother Valley, which includes Dinnington and Maltby, and 380 in Rotherham. Of these, 40 in Rother Valley and ten in Rotherham were unemployed on 11th March.

Mr. Griffiths: In reply to a previous Question the Parliamentary Secretary said that much depends on the type of industry in an area. In the areas referred to in my Question there are various types of industry. None of these children should be unemployed. What seriousness are we to attach to his statement that he does not know the numbers that have returned to school? Is it not a sad reflection on this Government that youngsters leaving school cannot find work?

Mr. Whitelaw: I still must say that I cannot give the figures of those who have returned to school. I note what he has said about the rest, about placing taking rather longer than last year, but as he will be the first to appreciate, substantial progress is being made.

Disabled Workers, West Riding

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled workers in the West Riding of Yorkshire have received rehabilitation or other training courses during the past year; and how many of these are now unemployed.

Mr. Hare: During the year, March, 1962, to February, 1963, 866 registered disabled persons in the West Riding of Yorkshire completed courses of industrial rehabilitation or vocational training or both. On 20th March, 1963, of 159 who had completed training courses, 34 were


unemployed and of 707 who had completed only rehabilitation courses, 240 were unemployed.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the misery that is caused when a man who is disabled goes through a rehabilitation or training course with high hopes that work will be found for him but afterwards finds that he is unemployed and is thrown back on the scrap heap? Will the Minister get his Department to make determined efforts to get these people into employment?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department makes every effort to get these people into employment. He is right about the disappointment which obviously must be felt by them. He will appreciate that they are by far the most difficult cases. However, almost half of those who complete the courses are placed in employment and a further sixth accepted for training. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks, although I can assure him that we are doing everything we can to place these people in employment.

Mr. Mason: Would the Minister not agree that an expansion of Remploy would help in this respect? Will he reconsider the categories who are allowed to enter Remploy so that, by a broadening of those categories, more disabled may be taken in?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member knows, we have expanded the capacity of Remploy, which deals with the more severely disabled. We want to combine the efforts of Remploy, the local authorities and employers, the latter in taking a percentage of disabled when engaging people for jobs in their factories.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient consultation regarding prospective employment prior to these men being sent for training? Is he aware that in some cases men are sent off for training courses but find when they have returned from those courses that the work for which they have been trained is not available for them locally? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is the fullest consultation with local employers?

Mr. Hare: There is, of course, considerable consultation. We are anxious

to give people who can benefit from rehabilitation every chance and one must draw the balancing line rather carefully.

Offices and Shops (First-Aid)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the obligations which will be placed on employers after the coming into operation of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill to maintain a specific number of persons trained in first-aid, what arrangements he proposes to make to ensure that the necessary number of trained persons will in fact be available.

Mr. Hare: I propose to consult the voluntary training organisations about the provision of training facilities. The date when this provision comes into force would be fixed to allow sufficient time for employers to make the necessary arrangements. This was the procedure adopted when the corresponding provision under the Factories Act, 1959, was brought into operation.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the difficulty, with which the right hon. Gentleman must be familiar, of getting volunteers to come forward for training, how will employers be able to carry out their obligations under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in the absence of any statutory powers?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is right in drawing attention to the difficulty. He will remember that we discussed this when the Bill was proceeding through its Third Reading and Report stages. We are giving ample warning to employers of what will be required of them, and I trust that we are going to succeed in our objective.

Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will watch the position carefully to see that their obligations are carried out?

Mr. Hare: Naturally I will watch this most carefully, since it is my Bill.

Don Valley

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls will be leaving school in the Don Valley at Easter, according to the latest information available to the youth employment officer; how many jobs are available for


them; and how many boys and girls who left school in 1962 are still not in employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: About 720 boys and girls are expected to leave school at Easter in the Don Valley, including Thorne and Goole. It is not possible to forecast how many jobs will be available, but the Youth Employment Service will make every effort to get them suitable employment as quickly as possible. On 11th March, 100 school leavers out of 2,943 were registered for employment.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Doncaster figures of youth employment compared with the figures of total unemployment in the area are somewhat grave and are actually the worst in the United Kingdom? Should not the Government take some urgent, special steps to deal with this problem in an area where reasonably full employment is in existence? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that if his advisers have no ideas on how to tackle this problem there are plenty of hon. Members who have ideas about which he may not be aware for tackling it? Does he not know that we are sick and tired of this drift into unemployment and poverty in areas which formerly were fairly reasonably well off? What do the Government intend to do to bring about some improvement in the situation in the Don Valley?

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the position in Doncaster being the worst in Great Britain. I realise, however, that there are some extra difficulties there at the moment. Nevertheless, there are opportunities in the surrounding areas and the figures of placings of the Christmas school leavers are such as to give us encouragement. While progress is slower than it has been in the past, it is, nevertheless, being made.

Ford Motor Company, Doncaster

Mr. Kelley: asked the Minister of Labour what opportunities for employment are available for the people at present employed by the Ford Motor Company in their Doncaster factory.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour what discussions he has had in

Doncaster about the proposed closure of the Ford Works there, and its effect on local employment; and what plans he has for helping to provide work in the district which includes Thorne, where the unemployment figure is 10 per cent.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the threatened closing down of the Ford Motor Company's car assembly plant in Doncaster will further aggravate the unemployment position in the Dearne Valley contituency area; and what his plans are to help to prevent the workpeople affected from becoming redundant.

Mr. Hare: The company has announced that it intends to end car production at Doncaster by the middle of next year, but I understand that no definite decision has yet been taken to close the factory completely. It is impossible to say at this stage how many workpeople will need to find alternative work locally but the full facilities of my Department will be available to any workers who seek our help.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister not aware that people are waiting for an answer to a question of this kind in Doncaster? Does he not know that redundancies and rumours of redundancies in Doncaster are throwing a blanket of gloom over the town? If he could give us some shade of hope that jobs will be available when this factory closes down that would be a great fillip to the town?

Mr. Hare: The whole point of my Answer is that it is not finally decided that this factory will close down. As I explained, the company is still examining what other work might be carried out at its Doncaster factory and is also offering its employees jobs at its other factories.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is impossible to offer jobs to some of the workers in Doncaster—and urge them to go elsewhere and to other factories—unless housing is provided for them? There seems to be no co-ordination between the various Government Departments about work and housing. Will he bear in mind that a little while ago, when I was asking him about the heavy unemployment in the Thorne area of my constituency, he suggested that the people concerned might go to Doncaster to seek work? If this


large Doncaster factory is likely to close down or diminish its activities, where would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should send the Thorne unemployed?

Mr. Hare: I am hoping that the Doncaster factory will not be closed down and that what I said earlier to the hon. Gentleman is correct. I consider that the prospects of employment in Doncaster are reasonably satisfactory and that they will help his own area. I do not, therefore, retract what I said in any way at all.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that this is the second factory which it is proposed to close in the south Yorkshire area recently? Will the right hon. Gentleman make some efforts to ensure that if these factories do close an alternative form of employment will be provided? Is he not aware that there is a keen suspicion in south Yorkshire that work is being taken from this area to other parts of the country where, admittedly, the unemployment is of a graver nature?

Mr. Hare: No. Sir. I do not think that that is a fair accusation. This was raised when I was visiting Doncaster the other day. It is true that a large section of the motor car industry has gone to Scotland, Merseyside and elsewhere, but I think that it is important at this stage not to conclude that the factory, about which we are speaking, is necessarily going to close down. I also think that, with the general efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expand the economy, the future of Doncaster need not be as depressing as some hon. Members are trying to make out.

Sir G. Nabarro: Regarding the large financial subventions given by the Government to the motor industry to establish production at Halewood and elsewhere, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Ford Motor Company advised the Government—before Government money was invested at Halewood and elsewhere—that if production commenced there car production would cease at Doncaster and would be concentrated at Halewood?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that the company was in a position to give such advice at the stage when it was decided to move to Halewood. To be fair to the company, it must constantly be

examining the efficiency of its organisation; and it is no use taking up an entirely rigid attitude in these matters.

Habib Bank (Overseas) Ltd. (Dispute)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take in the trade dispute between members of the National Union of Bank Employees on the staff of the London office of the Habib Bank (Overseas) and the management of the bank.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of a trades dispute between members of the National Union of Bank Employees and the management of the Habib Bank, Overseas; and whether his Department will use their good offices to suggest arbitration machinery for the settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour what action he has taken to facilitate a settlement in the dispute between the management of the London office of the Habib National Bank and members of its staff who belong to the National Union of Bank Employees.

Mr. Hare: I understand that during discussions last Friday the union and the bank made some progress towards a settlement of this dispute and that the talks were resumed today. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that in these circumstances I do not wish to say anything which might prejudice the outcome.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the strike has been temporarily settled, the basic cause of the dispute still remains? Will he, therefore, use his good offices, if he is invited to, in helping to create a more permanent settlement?

Mr. Hare: My information is that the strike is not yet settled and that the discussions are still going on. Useful discussions took place on Friday, and they are continuing today. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my offices are available at the request of both sides.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that the strike was settled half an hour ago—[Laughter.]—but that two of the


employees involved have not been reinstated? Is he also aware that extraordinary pressure was brought to bear in Pakistan on the relatives of strikers, in complete violation of the spirit of the I.L.O.? Will he now seek a complete settlement of this unfortunate dispute, because the differences are now very narrow indeed?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has the advantage over me in that he has not had to attend to his duties in this Chamber for the last hour or so. I was not informed of the news that he has just given us. I will certainly note what he has said and acquaint myself with this "hot" news that he has given to the House.

Mr. Brockway: But is the Minister aware that while a settlement of this dispute was made this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half an hour ago."]—no, this morning—two of the strikers are still dismissal? As 14 days have been allowed for reconsideration of this matter, will the Ministry of Labour, during the next fortnight, use its offices to obtain the reinstatement of men who have been dismissed only for trade union activities?

Mr. Hare: There seems to be some dispute between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) on the actual timing of the settlement. I say to the hon. Member, as I said to his hon. Friend, that I will see what I can usefully do. Until I have a full account of what has happened, however, it would be quite wrong for me to make any further approach.

Miners, Twechar and Croy

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to find jobs for unemployed miners in the villages of Twechar and Croy in the County of Dunbartonshire.

Mr. Whitelaw: Our local officers will continue to do everything possible to find work for those registered with them.

Mr. Bence: We have heard that answer so often before. Will the Parliamentary Secretary please keep in mind not only that the mines are closing down in this area but the railway stations also, which means that, with very few new industries coming to the area, he must do something

drastic, and quickly, if there is not to be very heavy unemployment in the County of Dunbartonshire?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the hon. Member knows, I take a very close personal interest in these matters in the particular area he has described—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—so I can assure him that it will remain very much in my mind.

Mr. Baxter: Will the hon. Gentleman state what has been done in the past to relieve unemployment in this area, and what plans he, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade intend to put into operation to help these people, many of whom were recently unemployed because of the closing of the mines in the whole area, including Kilsyth?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Needless to say, in my last supplementary answer I did not imply any idea of favouritism. I should also make it clear that my personal interest is purely one of a considerable interest in the people concerned and does not go further than that.

Clydebank

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what additional measures he is taking to deal with the increase in the numbers of unemployed registering at the employment exchange in the burgh of Clydebank.

Mr. Whitelaw: Our local officers are doing everything possible to try to find work for those registered with them. Clydebank is part of the Glasgow Development District, where the full facilities of the Local Employment Act are available.

Mr. Bence: I certainly hope that something will be done in the next 12 months, because for about seven years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Be patient. I hope that something more will be done in the next few months, because is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the Burgh of Clydebank and its environs there is really no hope for hundreds of boiler makers, shipwrights, millwrights, engineers and all sorts of workers? There is also the question of more closures of railway stations between Clydebank and Dumbarton. Will he therefore try to change this deplorable situation on Clydebank?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is every reason to expect that the expansion of the economy, for which measures have already been taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will give hope to some of those people to whom he refers. He will also know of the contracts placed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which have given substantial orders to two firms on Clydebank.

Ayrshire

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers are registered as unemployed in the County of Ayr.

Mr. Whitelaw: There were 101 out of 5,007 on 11th March.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend whether he is fully aware of the great personal tragedy there is for each boy and girl represented in the figures he has just given, and the extremely bad psychological effect it has on these children to think that they are unwanted for any employment?

Mr. Whitelaw: I certainly note what the hon. Gentleman says. I appreciate the tone in which he says it, and respond to it. I would only say to him that of 1,391 school leavers at Christmas, only 74 are still registered for employment. Therefore, although there is difficulty for those 74, substantial progress has nevertheless been made.

Unemployment (North-East)

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that his Department's Special Press Notice on Unemployment for mid-March, 1963, states that the number of unemployed was 701,930, equal to 3·1 per cent., and that in the northern region the figure is 60 per cent.; and what action he has taken this month.

Mr. Hare: I am, of course, well aware of the figures. As the hon. Member knows, a series of measures have already been and will continue to be taken by the Government to reduce unemployment both in the Northern Region and in the rest of the country.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that if a figure of 6 per cent, prevailed

throughout the country there would be about 1½ million unemployed, and that the situation in the North-East must, of necessity, be very bad? One wonders how it is that after there being for a fair length of time a special representative in the North, things are not getting any better but are getting worse. What does he intend to do about the new representative he has put there?

Mr. Hare: The situation in the North-East is, of course, very serious. I am glad to see, however, that last month's unemployment figures there were rather better than those for February. That does not mean that there is not a grave situation there which the Government are determined to improve. A great deal is being done. As hon. Members have the information, I will not enumerate the large number of special measures that have already been taken to give special priority to the North-East and to other areas of very heavy unemployment.

CENTRAL AFRICA

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, make a short statement.
This is my first opportunity of informing the House about the talks on Central Africa which, as the House will be aware, were concluded last Friday afternoon. The object of these talks was to find a basis on which a conference might later be held.
At the outset, I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government took no decision on these complex matters until all the Governments concerned had had an opportunity to put forward their views. In the light of the views expressed it was necessary for Her Majesty's Government to consider what was the best course to pursue in the interests of all concerned. Her Majesty's Government have accepted that none of the territories can be kept in the Federation against its will, and they have, therefore, accepted the principle that any territory which so wishes must be allowed to secede.
Her Majesty's Government are convinced that this decision was essential before further progress could be made towards their declared objective of policy in Central Africa, that is to say, the


evolution, of an effective relationship between the territories which is acceptable to each of them.
Because that is their objective, Her Majesty's Government have also clearly stated that they consider it necessary that before any further changes are made there should be renewed discussion in Africa not only on the transitional arrangements required, but also on the broad lines of a new relationship.
I have this morning received a letter from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia asking for certain assurances about the future granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia. This will require close consideration by Her Majesty's Government and I cannot at present take the matter further. I will, however, keep the House informed of any developments that may occur.

Mr. Strachey: Is the First Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House welcome his acceptance of the principle that any territory which so wishes must be allowed to secede from the Federation? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question of secession is an entirely different question from the question to which he refers in the latter part of his statement, that of independence for any of the territories? Is he aware that, while we are all anxious to see these territories become independent members of the Commonwealth, we consider that none of them should become independent until it is well on the way, at any rate, to a democratic system with a franchise which gives effective representation to all races?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that no one, by any stretch of imagination, could describe the present Southern Rhodesian Constitution as fulfilling that condition and that neither, for that matter, does the Northern Rhodesian Constitution fulfil that condition? Would he therefore agree that the next step for both territories should be the preparation by this House of a new Constitution containing a broader franchise and better representation? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give an assurance to the House that he will not consider independence for these territories until and unless they have new Constitutions based on a substantially broader franchise than at present?

Mr. Butler: The question of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution is a matter which I also discussed with elected Ministers of the Northern Rhodesia Government and it is agreed that we shall carry these discussions further after the first round of discussions about future relationship—that is, to take one thing at a time.
As for the Southern Rhodesian Government, I cannot go further than my statement that Her Majesty's Government have now under consideration the request of the Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister.

Sir T. Moore: Is it not a tragedy that this great and noble conception of a multi-racial community should be at an end? Will my right hon. Friend, in his decision on a possible alternative, therefore see that the same ideals that Sir Roy Welensky had in mind are maintained?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is quite clear that the Federation, in its day, achieved a great deal and we are all of us aware of the services rendered by Sir Roy Welensky and the Federal Ministers. What Her Majesty's Government had to come to a conclusion about was whether we could keep people in the Federation against their will, and we came to the conclusion that one can never build up a satisfactory relationship in Central Africa unless and until it is by consent and agreement.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the end of Federation will require legislation and an Order in Council and that the future of common services will then become the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the economic services are continued and the economic links, at any rate, are maintained between the three territories? Will he make clear that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to abdicate their responsibilities for seeing that there is constitutional progress in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir." Legislation will be required.
The answer about economic links is that they will have to be discussed, I


hope, between the Governments principally concerned, namely, the Northern and Southern Rhodesian Governments, in whose two interests the economic links axe so important. Naturally, Her Majesty's Government will play their part in helping to work out the economic links and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing up that subject.
On the third point, about abdication in relation to Southern Rhodesia, both under the late Southern Rhodesia Government and the present Southern Rhodesia Government we have never hesitated to put forward our view of the advantage of representative Government.

Mr. Wall: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to negotiate future economic links between three sovereign independent Governments? If so, will he resist pressure from the Opposition, the United Nations and the United States and concede the principle of independence to Southern Rhodesia, which is now practically conceded to Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: The principle of independence has not, in fact, been conceded to Northern Rhodesia. All that has been agreed is that there shall be future talks about the future Constitution of Northern Rhodesia which Northern Rhodesians hope will lead towards independence in the end.
The important issue of Southern Rhodesian independence, to which my hon. Friend attaches so much importance, is now under the urgent consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard the repayment of £114 million worth of Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland stock which was subscribed by people in this country with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: That is one of the many very difficult matters which will come up for consideration in the future.

Sir G. Nicholson: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has done up to now, may I ask whether he is aware that two facts stand out a mile? The first is that our responsibility towards

Southern Rhodesia is moral rather than statutory, but that that moral responsibility knows no difference of race, creed or colour?

Mr. Butler: I would accept that we have moral responsibility towards all the territories in Central Africa and not just one.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can confirm that Mr. Winston Field has indicated that he will not take part in a conference for the reconsideration of the Federation unless his Government are granted independence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the strongest opposition, both in the House and more particularly in Southern Rhodesia, if the right hon. Gentleman gives recognition to a minority Government against the wishes of the great majority of the people of that territory?

Mr. Butler: I think that Mr. Winston Field's representations relate to independence at a future date, namely, in relation either to the secession of one of the territories or to the independence of one of the territories. He is most anxious that other territories should not go ahead without his getting what he wants. That is a more literal representation of what he feels. This must be considered very carefully by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wall: I have given you previous notice, Mr. Speaker, of my intention to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. Would it be right for me to do so now?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Not immediately. I will give the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) an opportunity later.

Mr. Berkeley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the sympathy and support of the overwhelming majority of Members of this House in the most difficult decision which he has had to take? Is he further aware that there are some hon. Members, at least, on this side of the House, who could not agree to the granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia on the existing constitution?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It certainly has been a very heavy responsibility and I have regretted very


much some of the personal disagreements that have had to take place in the course of accepting this decision. I regret them very much and I express my regret not only to the House, but to others who are outside.
On the second point, I can only answer my hon. Friend by saying that Her Majesty's Government have this under consideration.

Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman go at least as far as recognising that it would be an act of great irresponsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government to, in the First Secretary's words, give Mr. Field what he wants without the most determined effort to get the situation in Southern Rhodesia back on to a constitutional and Parliamentary basis under a Constitution which makes it possible for the two races to be represented effectively in Parliament?

Mr. Butler: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) wishes to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Wall: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the request by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for the immediate granting of the principle of independence.
This matter is of obvious public importance, Mr. Speaker, as it affects several million of Her Majesty's subjects. As for its urgency, I should like to remind you that last Friday, as has been announced by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary today, the Government conceded the right of secession to Northern Rhodesia and decided to call a conference on Central Africa to discuss not only the dismemberment of the Federation, but the setting up of a new association between the three component territories.
At the same time, the Prime Minister of the Federation and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia made it clear that they would not attend the conference unless the principle of independence to

Southern Rhodesia were granted. In my submission, a power vacuum now exists in Central Africa and a very explosive situation is developing.
The Federal Government's authority has now been undermined in the area and I suggest that Her Majesty's Government have little direct authority in Southern Rhodesia under the existing Constitution. The forces of disruption and subversion are, I believe, already gathering in this area of the world and I believe that an immediate decision should be made by Her Majesty's Government.
In submitting this request, it is not my intention to ask for a debate or postmortem on the Federation. The decision is made and must be accepted. The Government must, however, have expected this request from the Southern Rhodesian Government and it is clear that as we are to have the Budget on Wednesday, and the debate upon it is to be continued nearly until the Easter Recess, the House will have no opportunity of debating this vital subject before the Recess.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that because of the situation in that area, the House should have a chance of expressing its opinion before the Executive makes the final decision to answer Mr. Field by either a "Yes" or a "No".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter or urgent public importance, namely,
the request of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for the immediate granting of the principle of independence.
I cannot hold that to be within the Standing Order. My information is that any change in the status quo one way or the other requires legislation.

Mr. Fell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the granting by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the right to secede from the Central African Federation.
I shall take only one minute of the time of the House in explaining the slight difference between this request and the


application which has just been declined, Mr. Speaker. It is simply that the catalyst of the disruption of the Federation was the granting of the right to secede to all three territories. That was taken late last week and my fear is that this may lead, first, to the premature disintegration of the Federation before its responsibilities are over, and secondly, to a consequent threat to public order in the Central African Federation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the granting by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the right to secede from the Central African Federation.
I am afraid that catalyst or no, the point is the same. It would require legislation.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE (LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL)

Report [27th March] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:
That—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the London Government Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;
(b) the two days which under the Order [29th January] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [29th January], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of Proceedings




p.m.


First day.
Re-committal and report of Bill, New Clauses and Parts I and II
7.0



Parts III to VI
10.0



Parts VII and VIII
—


Second day.
Parts VII and VIII, so far as not already disposed of
5.0



Part IX, New Schedules and Schedule 1
6.30



Schedules 2 to 17 and any proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion
8.0



Third Reading
11.0

Orders of the Day — LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 27, Clause 3, page 4, line 7, Clause 21, page 27, line 31, Clause 23, page 31, line 27, Clause 39, page 55, lines 24 and 27, Clause 58, page 74, line 18, Clause 68, page 80, lines 20 and 26, Clause 69, page 81, lines 4 and 6, Clause 82, page 92, line 13, Clause 84, page 94, lines 6 and 29, page 95, line 46, page 96, lines 5 and 8, Schedule 2, page 111, line 12, page 112, line 36, Schedule 4, page 126, lines 40 and 45, and Schedule 8, page 156, lines 20 and 36, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Keith Joseph, the Amendments to Clause 17, page 23, line 4, and Schedule 6, page 144, line 41, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. John Hay, and the Amendment to Schedule 1, page 104, line 41, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Miss Mervyn Pike.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 82, page 91. line 48, the new Clause (Subsidiary functions of Greater London Council), the Amendmen to Schedule 2, page 112, line 36, and the new Schedule (Subsidiary functions of Greater London Council), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Michael Stewart".—[Mr. M. Stewart.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(LONDON BOROUGHS.)

3.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "expedient" to the end of line 30.
The Committee will recall that when discussing Clause 1 in Committee of the whole House, I undertook to substitute the provisions of Section 290 of the Local Government Act for the provisions of Clause 1 with regard to the costs of public inquiries. This was done by the insertion of Clause 85 in Standing Com-

mittee and this Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out paragraph (d) and to insert:
(d) in relation to a county district to which Part III applies as from the date of the passing of this Act only by virtue of this subsection, that date shall be deemed to be specified in sections 47 (3) and 52 (2) as a further day on which the periods mentioned in those provisions may begin.
The purpose of this Amendment is twofold. First, the effect of deleting the existing paragraph (d) is to ensure that the review to be carried out by Hertfordshire and Surrey of their county districts shall not take place before the Boundary Commission has completed its review of the area as a whole.
The insertion of the new paragraph fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee to make sure that parts of the originally defined Metropolitan area for the purposes of the Royal Commission, which are now excluded from Greater London, shall not be prejudiced in their ability to put forward delegation schemes under the Local Government Act, 1933.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(METROPOLITAN ROADS.)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, in page 23, to leave out lines 4 to 6.
This is in compliance with an undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee that Amendments would be introduced to put it at the discretion of the Minister whether the costs of inquiries should or should not be recoverable from the local authorities concerned. In this case the inquiry would be as to whether or not a road should be a metropolitan road, and the Amendment allows the Minister of Transport in this case


the discretion whether or not to pass on the costs of the inquiry.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21.—(HOUSING POWERS IN GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 27, line 31, after the first "of", to insert:
the Small Dwelling Acquisition Act 1899".
This is an Amendment which honours a pledge given by my right hon. Friend in Committee to give the Greater London Council the full powers of the Small Dwelling Acquisition Acts in addition to the powers under Section 43 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23.—(TRANSFER OF LAND HELD FOR HOUSING PURPOSES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 31, line 27, at the end to add:
(6) Any contributions which the Greater London Council carry to the credit of their Housing Revenue Account under paragraph 1 (5) or (6) of Schedule 5 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958 for the year 1965–66 shall be treated as expenditure for special London purposes and be chargeable only on the inner London boroughs, the City and the Temples; and so much of any such contributions for the years hereinafter mentioned shall be treated and chargeable as aforesaid as is necessary to ensure that the amounts in the pound required to be levied for special London purposes and for general London purposes respectively by way of rates in respect of those contributions are as near as may be in the following proportions, that is to say—

(a) for the year 1966–67, six to one;
(b) for the year 1967–68, five to two;
(c) for the year 1968–69, four to three;
(d) for the year 1969–70, three to four;
(e) for the year 1970–71, two to five;
(f) for the year 1971–72, one to six;
and so much of paragraph 5 of the said Schedule 5 as authorises the Greater London Council to apply any surplus shown in their Housing Revenue Account at the end of a financial year towards making good to their general fund any such contributions as aforesaid for earlier years shall not apply to contributions for any year earlier than 1972–73.
This Amendment complies with an undertaking given during the Committee stage to hon. Members on both sides of

the House, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter), that any loss that might arise from the housing operations of the Greater London Council inheriting the L.C.C. stock of housing shall only be spread over the whole of the citizens of London as a whole over a period of years, because it would only be over a period of years that houses, either by new building or by way of relets, would become available for the use of citizens in the whole of Greater London.
My hon. Friend argued in Committee that it should be tapered over a period of ten years. The Government kept themselves free during the Committee stage to consider what would be the right time, and I must confess to the Committee that at the best of times this decision must be somewhat of an arbitrary one. The Government believe that the right scale would be to allow this cost to be spread over a period of seven years, and that is what is embodied in the Amendment. I cannot defend it in the sense of saying that six or eight years would be absolutely wrong, but seven years seems to be about right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEWERAGE.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 55, line 24, to leave out from "discharged" to "into" in line 26.
I think that it would be convenient, Sir William, if we could consider, at the same time, the next Amendment, in line 27, at the end to insert:
exclusive of any area in the district of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board and any area outside Greater London the sewage from which is so discharged in pursuance only of an agreement under section 28 of the Public Health Act 1936".

The Chairman: Yes, if that be the wish of the Committee.

Mr. Corfield: The purpose of the two Amendments—they are little more than drafting Amendments—is to ensure that, as was always the intention, any areas excluded from the sewerage area of the Greater London Council as defined in Clause 39 (1, b) are limited to areas which are either outside the Greater


London Area or in the area covered by the West Kent Main Sewerage Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 27, at end insert:
exclusive of any area in the district of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board and any area outside Greater London the sewage from which is so discharged in pursuance only of an agreement under section 28 of the Public Health Act 1936".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58.—(PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 74, line 18, at the end to add:
(3) Until the coming into operation of the Minister's order under subsection (2) of this section, one half of the expenditure of the Greater London Council in the exercise of functions with respect to parks and open spaces, being functions which immediately before 1st April 1965 were functions of the London county council, shall be treated as expenditure for special London purposes and be chargeable only on the inner London boroughs, the City and the Temples.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that one half of the cost of maintaining the parks and open spaces taken over from the Greater London Council is borne by inner London authorities only, leaving the other half to be borne by Greater London as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68.—(TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN COUNTIES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move in page 80, line 20, to leave out "sixpence" and to insert "fivepence".
I think, Sir William, that this Amendment might be explained in conjunction with the next Amendment, in line 26, to leave out from "to" to "of" in line 32 and to insert:
seven-eighths of that excess;

(c) in the year 1967–68, an amount equal to three-quarters of that excess;
(d) in the year 1968–69, an amount equal to five-eighths of that excess;
(e) in the year 1969–70, an amount equal to half that excess;
(f) in the year 1970–71, an amount equal to three-eighths of that excess;
(g) in the year 1971–72, an amount equal to a quarter of that excess;
(h) in the year 1972–73, an amount equal to one-eighth".

The Chairman: Yes, if that is for the convenience of the Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: These Amendments arise from a rather fierce debate during the Committee stage about the implications for the truncated counties of the extra rate burden that may fail upon their ratepayers due to the survival of rather more expensive services for a number of years than might be justified for the remaining population and size of those truncated counties. I think that it was generally agreed that there might be a burden here upon the truncated counties. There was a dispute as to how much of the burden should be borne, for how long and by whom. In the outcome, the Government undertook to reconsider both the amount and, slightly more enthusiastically, the length of tapering period over which the truncated counties might look for relief.
The Government have now reconsiderd the whole question and still believe firmly that there will be a great deal that the truncated counties will be able to do over the years in order to reduce the cost that would otherwise fall upon their ratepayers. Indeed, it is absolutely inevitably in their own interests that the counties will seek to minimse the cost of this operation to their ratepayers. Nevertheless, it may be true that some cost falls upon them for a period of years until they can fully adjust themselves. Consequently, the Government maintain their view that some contribution should be made, and they maintain their view, also, that that contribution should go on the broad shoulders of Greater London as a whole.
In view of the strong and persuasive arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), however, the Government have reconsidered the level of the threshold over which the payments shall begin to be made; that is to say, the threshold in excess of which any probable extra rate burden on a county, on account of reorganisation, shall be entitled to compensation from the citizens of Greater London. The Amendment reduces the threshold from 6d. to 5d.
This may appear to my right hon. Friend to be a small recompense for the vigour and precision of the case that he argued, but I hope that he will look upon it as quite a significant move by


the Government, imposing a small additional burden on London ratepayers if it proves to be necessary. I say "if it proves to be necessary" because in the welter of figures with which hon. Members have been assailed on this subject we must still recognise that the extra cost is estimated only, and there are many estimates of what the cost will be. I believe that it may well turn out that the cost proves to be very much less than pessimists at the moment fear.
The Amendment fixes the threshold at 5d., which, in terms of 1962–63 rateable value, is three times as much—namely, 1s. 3d.—so that the threshold stands, in the rateable terms of yesterday as opposed to today, at 1s. 3d. as against 1s. 6d.
If I may now move to the period over which the payments shall be made—this is covered by the next Amendment—my righ hon. Friend urged that the period should be extended from five years to twelve years, but he said that if the Government were seeking a compromise, ten years would be an admirable halfway between five and fifteen. The Government have come nearer to the mathematical mean and are proposing, in view of my right hon. Friend's argument, that the tapering period should be extended from five to eight years.
I hope, therefore, that, bearing in mind that someone has to pay and that in this case it will be the ratepayers of Greater London, my right hon. Friend will feel that the Government have moved towards the objective which he has put in front of us and that these two Amendments will be satisfactory.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friends and I are still of the opinion that this burden should have been placed, not as the Minister put it, on the broad shoulders of Greater London, but on the still broader shoulders of the Exchequer. However, we have fought that battle out in Committee and the Government are apparently not prepared to give way on that issue.
I think that, disappointed and indignant as we are about that state of affairs, it would be unjust for us to try to retaliate by objecting to the slightly more generous treatment now accorded to the truncated counties, but I would not wish to let this

occasion go by without saying that the burden does not only hit the truncated counties. It hits the greater part of Greater London as well, and that is why it ought to be borne by the Exchequer.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I suppose that I should express a mead of gratitude to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot honestly say that this proposal is acceptable. I am very appreciative of the fact that he has looked at the term of years, but the "6d. bar", which is now reduced to 5d., is quite unacceptable. There is no reason for this at all. I do not know by what process of reasoning my right hon. Friend's Department reached the principle of 6d., and I should hate to know by what process of reasoning my right hon. Friend knocked 20 per cent. off and thought that he was doing nicely. There should be no bar whatsoever. There is no principle behind it.
There is some principle behind having a period of years, because we all accept that these are transitional payments, but there is no principle in saying to a county, "You have got to bear a large lump of expenditure without any measure of what is actually concerned". The Government are saying to the ratepayers of the county in question, "You have got to bear an extra 1s. 3d. on the old assessment and 5d. on the new one". It is entirely unjust and quite unacceptable, and I hope that it will be contested in another place.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I cannot help feeling that the Minister has been less than generous in this matter, having regard to the representations that were made to him. I strongly support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), because, obviously, the people who will bear this burden are not concerned with the matter—the ratepayers of Middlesex and of London. This is essentially a matter which involves taking away part of a county and leaving it without the resources which it otherwise would have.
I am all in favour of the greatest good for the greatest number, and I am not unduly quarrelling with the principle of spreading the burden over the whole of London, but I must say that to reduce the bar at which the burden begins from 6d. to 5d. is rather derisory. I should have thought that the Minister would have accepted that the proper course would be


to fix a figure much more in keeping with what was in mind at the time, when these figures were first thought of, and when the rate was on the basis of the old rateable value before the new valuations came into effect.
This will undoubtedly place a very heavy burden on some of the truncated counties. I can only express the hope that the Minister will do a little more thinking and see whether, in another place, a more generous attitude can be adopted.
I still feel, however, that this burden, which will now fall on the ratepayers of London, has not been created at their desire—certainly not in the case of Middlesex. It is undoubtedly the duty of the Exchequer to provide, at least in part if not in whole, some of the assistance which might be necessary.
There was a hint in the Minister's speech that the counties would be more likely to adjust themselves to the new conditions if they were not in receipt of too much in the way of transitional payments. I suggest that this is a little unworthy, because the counties will obviously be concerned, in the interests of their own ratepayers, to readjust their own services as quickly as they can. Obviously, one cannot suddenly come down on the clerks and engineers and say, "Because part of the county has been taken away we are going to take away part of your salary." That sort of thing should not operate in any circumstances. Therefore, the burden is bound to operate in respect of the salaries of a large number of other people for a long time—people on whom expenditure will be reduced in respect of the social services themselves.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel it desirable to look at this matter again and discuss with the Treasury whether, in equity, it ought not to bear some of this burden.

Captain Walter Elliot: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) in his plea. This plan is very radical, far more radical than we usually indulge in, and as such it ought to be tempered.
As to the counties—and I can only speak for Surrey—certain areas of considerable rateable value have bean lost. In time they will, no doubt, accept this

situation, provided that the transitional arrangements are smooth and take place over a long period and that regard is paid to the cost on the county. I should like the transitional period to be longer than has been proposed. I also support my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate in asking that further consideration shall be given to the financial position.

Mr. Tom Driberg: While conceding that this is a slight improvement—although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said about it—I should like to express concern at the opening part of the Minister's speech. I refer particularly to the sentence—I cannot quote it verbatim, of course—in which he used the word "justified".
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman was implying, perhaps unintentionally, that people who are foolish and backward enough to prefer living in the country are not entitled to such good social and general services as people who are wise and fortunate enough to live in large towns. This seems to me to be a very improper view even to hint at, and I hope that the Minister did not really mean to imply it.
These truncated counties will have very serious financial difficulties. The advance of services in the rural areas will inevitably be slowed down. I do not know whether the Minister knows what some of these slum rural schools in remote Essex are like. They are really disgraceful, in A.D.1963. I am sorry that by taking the action he has taken, and by saying what he seemed to be saying, he has expressed complacency about that state of affairs.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should like to know whether the Minister has had pressure brought to bear upon him from sources other than those which he described in his speech, namely, from the boroughs themselves and from organisations such as the Association of Municipal Corporations. The attitude of that body is that the country as a whole welcomes the fact that in 1948 there was a repeal of this type of compensatory grant and that the right thing to do is that if a county is truncated and is still rich enough to be quite viable, there is no


need for the county borough to compensate it.
If, however, like Essex, it is obvious that help must be given, it should be given from the Exchequer and the compensation ought to come through the rate equalisation fund. Will the Minister help me to understand why new legislation of a type which differs very much from the 1948 legislation is now brought forward, bearing in mind—this is the important point—that other areas will be involved and this may well be a precedent?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has reminded us that there used to be a quite different set of financial conditions attached to local government reorganisation. The late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, in one of his vivid phrases, welcomed the departure from the old principle of compensation, saying that it had introduced into local government reform all the huckstering of an Eastern bazaar. I think that I have his words right. He said it much better than that, of course, but the words "Eastern bazaar" came into it.
We are now proceeding on the basis of helping counties, by transitional arrangements, to adjust themselves to the new load. Over the years, it may not be a heavier load. It may be a load which is different on both the expenditure and the income side. Certainly, over the first few years, until the adjustments are made, it may be heavier. This is the argument for making some such arrangements as are in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) says that he cannot understand why there should be any threshold at all. I will try once again to explain it. Local government reorganisation does, in the service of the interests of the citizen, as seen by the Government of the day, cause a number of alterations to the rate burden. In some cases it reduces what might have been a higher rate burden; in other cases it increases what might have been a lower burden. In all cases, I hope, it goes in parallel with improvement of services.
If, therefore, within each local reorganised area there are, as it were,

random movements of rates, why should other areas which are also affected escape some random movement? It is only when that random movement exceeds a certain level that it becomes. I think, proper for, in this case, the truncated counties to receive some help.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) commendably restrained himself from arguing the full case put forward in Standing Committee that the transitional payments should come from the taxpayer. Equally briefly, I reply that the operation is conducted for what the Government of the day believe to be the benefit of the citizens of the reorganised area and, therefore, the burden such as it is should fall upon them.
In answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I wish totally to disclaim the interpretation which he put upon any words which I used.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate will feel that it would not be right to save any part of the reorganised area from any consequences on the rates, but that it is right to save it from severe consequences. This threshold reduces the level at which those consequences are judged to be severe, spreading out the transitional payment. I hope that, on reflection, he will not feel as dissatisfied as he at first indicated.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: With respect, my right hon. Friend has not dealt with the argument at all. All the arguments which he used apply to the question of the length of the transition period. I accept that. I accept that one cannot compensate for ever and ever. Under the old Act, to which Aneurin Bevan was referring, it could relate, perhaps, to a period of twenty-one years, where roads were concerned. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the fact that the truncated counties will, in fact, have to bear a very much bigger burden where roads are concerned, because they have been—I accept this—subsidised by other areas, some poorer and some richer, in the metropolitan area.
I still see no reason whatever for the bar. I hesitate to use an anology, but if one is paying alimony one does not put up this sort of bar, or, for instance, if one is paying compensation of some


kind one does not say to the other person that he is sufficiently rich and need not have it. I am not a lawyer, and I have no experience of these matters, but it seems to me to be a quite wrong principle.
I should willingly have accepted a shorter period of compensation if there were no bar. It seems to me that the bar is quite wrong. I think that my right hon. Friend will find, in the case of one county, at least, that the consequence of what he proposes will be that it receives no transitional help at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 80, line 26, leave out from "to" to "of" in line 32 and insert:
seven-eighths of that excess;

(c) in the year 1967–68, an amount equal to three-quarters of that excess;
(d) in the year 1968–69, an amount equal to five-eighths of that excess;
(e) in the year 1969–70, an amount equal to half that excess;
(f) in the year 1970–71, an amount equal to three-eighths of that excess;
(g) in the year 1971–72, an amount equal to a quarter of that excess;
(h) in the year 1972–73, an amount equal to one-eighth".—[Sir Keith Joseph.]

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Dr. Stross: I plead with the Minister to recognise that by the Clause he is introducing a principle which will have ill consequences in many other parts of the country, apart from the particular problem we have before us now. I have in mind particularly the north of England, on Tyneside, for instance, where there is the possibility of truncation, and also parts of the Midlands.
Compensatory payments of this kind from boroughs to counties or from one type of local authority to another have, in the past, created a good deal of argument and a lot of bad feeling. I cannot recall the vivid phrases of Aneurin Bevan, but I know that bad feeling has existed in the past.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that bad feeling will be abolished by the compensation provisions of the Bill? I cannot accept that. There will be a great deal of bad feeling among the truncated counties.

Dr. Stross: If I may continue, I shall, perhaps, placate the right hon. Gentleman.
In the past, bad feeling has been created between authorities. This cannot be denied. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied, also, that, if one truncates an authority which is not rich enough or viable enough to conduct its work properly—the prime example of Essex is before us in this context—somebody should find the financial wherewithal to assist. The Minister is asking the newly created county boroughs to help in this. He should be aware that they consider that they themselves will have additional expenses in these formative years, and this will be an additional burden upon them.
This is the view which, I am advised, is held by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Association feels that the Minister's proposal is not equitable and that the principle associated with the Clause is wrong. Obviously, if additional finance is needed, as it certainly is in parts, this should come from the Exchequer rather than from the newly created county boroughs.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again and try to find a more just method of proceeding.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in what he has just said, but the main point I wish to make is this. We are here discussing financial matters which will affect 8½ million people in Greater London. We are constantly told in the newspapers of the bad attendance in this Chamber at various times. At this moment, none of the people who write this sort of stuff is in the Press Gallery.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69.—(RESEARCH AND INFORMA TION ON MATTERS AFFECTING GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 81, line 4, to leave out "may conduct, or assist" and to insert:
shall establish an organisation for the purpose of conducting, or assisting".


I think that it would be convenient, Sir William, if we could discuss with this Amendment the other Amendment to Clause 69, that is to say, in page 81, line 6, to leave out from "matters" to "in" in line 7, and to insert:
concerning Greater London or any part thereof and making, or assisting".

The Chairman: Yes, if the Committee so wishes.

Mr. Corfield: The first Amendment fullfils my right hon. Friend's undertaking in Committee that he would ensure that the obligation on the Greater London Council to set up an intelligence Department would be mandatory and not discretionary.
The second Amendment fulfils a similar undertaking to widen the words to make sure that the investigations which this body could carry out need not be restricted to the whole of Greater London but could be carried out in respect of any area.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 81, line 6, leave out from "matters" to "in" in line 7 and insert:
concerning Greater London or any part thereof and making, or assisting".

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82.—(TRANSFER AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS.)

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 91, line 48, at the end to insert:
(2) Any order under the said section 81, which by virtue of subsection (1) of this section contains provisions for the transfer of any person who immediately before the transfer was the holder of any place, situation or employment with or under a local authority shall provide that, except in the case of a person who is by agreement transferred before 1st April, 1965, the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to superannuation or pension rights) upon which a person holds the place, situation or employment to which he is transferred shall not be less favourable than those upon which he held his place, situation or employment immediately before the transfer.

The Chairman: I think that it would be right to discuss this Amendment with the Government Amendment in page 92, line 13, at the end to insert:

(2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April, 1965, is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.

Mr. Skeffington: I am glad that we are to have a short period, although the timetable Motion is still very severe, in which to discuss the terms and conditions of the large numbers of the staff who are to be transferred. It is little short of scandalous that, because of the way that the timetable Motion was drawn for discussions in Committee, we had on one occasion only 40 minutes in which to discuss some aspects of staff conditions and an another occasion only 10 minutes. Even so, on this first occasion, we were successful in defeating the Government.
When we consider that this will be the largest transfer of staff in the history of English local government, I think that it is preposterous that the Government should so arrange things that we and they appear to be indifferent perhaps to the conditions of so many of them and the entirely changed circumstances under which they will work.
The purpose of our Amendment is to ensure by Statute, not just by regulations or Minister's intention, that every officer who is transferred from an existing local authority to one of the new authorities shall be transferred on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which he enjoyed immediately before. I realise that the Minister, in his Amendment, has gone some way towards meeting the fears which many of us, and certainly the staff associations, have, but our Amendment goes further because, as I shall explain, difficulties arise in the Minister's Amendment over what is meant by the term "similar duties".
It is always a very difficult matter to evaluate new duties under new authorities, and sometimes even the creation of new posts under old authorities give rise to very considerable heart-burning and, let us face it, sometimes injustice. We feel that because of the difficulties in trying to get agreement as to what old job really corresponds


to a similar job in a new authority, it would be much better for the Government to accept the precise terms of our Amendment, which would obviate these difficulties and ensure that no transferred officer is likely to suffer as a result of something which is in no way his fault and which arises directly from the Government's scheme.
There are three major grounds for suggesting, in addition to the one that I have mentioned, why our Amendment is superior to the Government Amendment. In the first place, there is the general question of principle about local government officers and the nature of their employment. Undoubtedly, many who have chosen this career have done so because they welcome not only the type of work and the constructive nature of most of it, but because there was a considerable element of security. Once they were in local government service, then, provided that they were satisfactorily performing their duties, they could look forward to a continuous period of employment, with a pension at the end of it.
Many of them, particularly in the case of the county services, the L.C.C. and the M.C.C., are highly qualified officers who could, no doubt, have secured greater employment benefits in private industry. But there are additional risks which would mean, of course, that their period of occupation was less certain than being a staff member of one of the great county councils, or other London bodies, which, in many ways, are doing work similar to that done by the Civil Service, particularly in the higher grades. Through no fault of their own, but entirely as a consequence of the Government's scheme and the whole structure of local government being overturned, they are being transferred to new jobs. We want to ensure that those who are transferred do not suffer financially and do not have to run the hazards which, I think, will arise because of the difficulty of grading new jobs with the old and, therefore, exposing some officers to loss.
The second consideration is this. It might be thought that if we gave an absolute guarantee that every officer should not suffer financially on transfer that would be subjecting the public purse,

the ratepayers' purse, to very heavy demands. I think that this is not so. My belief is that this structure of government will not cause ultimately any reduction in staff. My belief is that because of the duplication of much of the work that has to be done—references which have continually to be made to the Minister in planning, is one—the ultimate staff employed will be probably greater.
Therefore, I do not think that the number of officers who cannot be found jobs of the calibre of those which they have been doing, or at the remuneration which they have been enjoying, will be very many. But I hope that no one will use the amount of money, the cost, as an argument for resisting our Amendment.
The third point, which I have already made, is the question of difficulties about what is comparable employment and how we can be certain that those who are to carry out this task will be able effectively to evaluate the worth of a new job under a new authority and the difficulty, which I expressed earlier, which arises in connection with the phrase "similar duties" in the Minister's Amendment.
It is, of course, true that if an officer is transferred, and it is decided under the new scheme that the work he will be doing will not attract the remuneration that he previously received because it is not of a similar character, there is a measure of compensation. But the compensation will not bring the salary enjoyed by the transferred officer in those circumstances up to the salary that he had been enjoying before transfer.
4.30 p.m.
Perhaps I can best illustrate this by giving a specific example. An officer in the children's department of the London County Council, administrative Grade I, has a salary range at present of £1,610 to £1,760. Assume that this man is 40 and has twenty years' service in the children's department and that he is now in receipt of salary of £1,730 and is to be transferred.
Then, if we assume that the most favourable scale is likely to be applied by a local authority outside the special staff arrangements for remuneration in the London County Council which appears to be the National Joint Council's administrative, professional, technical


and clerical scales, he will attract a remuneration of between £1,405 and £1.580.
If he were transferred to the new authority, and if his work were considered to be exactly the same as he was doing before, no difficulty would arise because presumably he would continue to enjoy the old salary. But, on the other hand, the post may not be regarded as comparable in a new London borough, for example, and the officer would, therefore, receive only partial compensation for his loss of salary right. For twenty years' service he would get £1,580 salary plus twenty-sixtieths of the difference in remuneration of £130.
Therefore, his loss in the first year would be £87 and in every subsequent year, for the remaining number of years service, he would lose £137. This is a large sacrifice to ask any officer to make, particularly in view of the fact that his transfer has nothing to do with him, but entirely results from the Government's action.
It may be said that it is very difficult to write a provision of this sort in a Statute, but I must draw attention to the fact that it has been done in other instances. I quoted in Standing Committee the Local Government Act, 1929, which dealt with the transfer of Poor Law officers. This was a large transfer of staff, but it was a simpler transaction in the sense that the whole Poor Law department, as it were, went over to the county. Therefore, all the people were kept together and their grading was untouched. I quoted this to show that this could be done by Statute.
The legal point which is raised is that it is not possible to guarantee this by Statute, but the 1929 Act shows that it can be done. But a much nearer statutory parallel to what the Amendment seeks to do is the orders made as a consequence of the Water Acts of 1945 and 1948. Precisely what we are seeking here was done in that case under orders to give transferred staff a measure of absolute protection. They are not exposed to this hazard of regrading and they get a guarantee which ensures that no reduction will be made in their remuneration. I draw the Minister's attention to the regulations made under those Measures

because at some future date the whole staff of the Metropolitan Water Board will be transferred. Therefore, those people will be very interested in the conditions which they already enjoy consequent on the changes made by Statute fifteen years ago.
My last point which I hope will commend itself to the Committee and to the Minister is this. On page 53 of the booklet entitled The Reshaping of British Railways it is said:
men who have to move from their appointed post to another one in a lower grade will in future retain their old rate of pay for up to five years, unless they can be reinstated in their former grade in the meantime.
If British Railways, with all their difficulties, financial and otherwise, can give this guarantee to their staff, I am sure that the new boroughs and Greater London Council, with their greater resources, could ensure that no transferred officer suffered.
The number of people for whom comparable employment will have to be found will be very small. Compensation proposals are intricate to work out. I ask the Minister to overcome all the administrative difficulties and doubts in connection with grading by ensuring that anyone who is transferred does not suffer as a consequence of this legislation.

Mr. David Weitzman: I have listened on many occasions to arguments from hon. Members opposite about the sanctity of contracts. They have said, "We dare not offend against the sanctity of contracts."
The strongest argument which appeals to me here and which persuades me of the lack of generosity on the Minister's part is this. Many people who entered the service of the L.C.C. accepted less money than they would have got for a comparable job elsewhere and relied on the authority carrying out the contract made with them. In other words, they believed that the sanctity of the contract would be preserved. The Government have destroyed the sanctity of contracts, and the Minister has been less than generous in tabling an Amendment which does not fully meet the aim of the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I hope that the Minister will look at this again and


will accept our Amendment in fairness to members of the staff involved.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been put forward, because our time is limited, but I understand that we can discuss the Minister's Amendment at the same time. I ask him to explain how it makes any sense. It seems to me that it is divided into two parts. It first says that
The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transfelted under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date".
Clearly, the words "same conditions" imply the same pay, same prospects, and so on.
Then the Amendment goes on to deal with a particular class and says:
and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date, shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.
The second part of the Amendment seems to imply that there is a class of people who will have "not less salary" if they perform similar duties. What about the other people? Are not they under the Amendment to be treated as holding office "by the same tenure" and on the same conditions as they had "before that date"? Unless I am wrong, there is a contradiction here, and the Amendment does not make sense.
Whether the Amendment makes sense or not, I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, particularly since many people have relied on the fact that they had a contract. It would be unfair and unjust on the Government's part to act in the way that they propose. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: We would all be wise to accept the final words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) on this difficult and important subject. He said—and I think that this is absolutely right—that the numbers of staff for whom equivalent employment will not be found are likely to be very small. Secondly, he said that the detailed consideration of exactly what is equivalent employment and what the effect of the compensation provisions

as at present agreed will be constitute a very intricate and difficult problem. I hope, therefore, that what I am going to say will be taken in the light of those two comments of his with which I thoroughly agree.
The Government Amendment—let us first clear the ground there—goes a long way towards meeting the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It puts into the Bill the requirement that transferred staff, whatever the job to which they are transferred may be, shall retain the tenure and conditions on which they were previously employed, that is, whether they were on temporary or permanent establishment, their hours of work, their leave arrangements and sickness arrangements. It goes on to limit their right to the same salary to a position where their new employment is equivalent to their old. That is the Government Amendment, not the Opposition Amendment. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman want to quarrel with that? It is the Government
Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman: The Minister will appreciate the point I was putting to him. I was asking him for his explanation of what I regard as an important point as to the meaning of the Government's Amendment. I suggest that it does not do what he is putting forward. It divides the staffs into two categories. I hope that the Minister listened to what I put forward.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Will the Minister address his mind to this—whether the word "conditions" includes salary and remuneration?

Sir K. Joseph: In answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I am advised that "conditions" does not include salary and remuneration. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman expostulating. That is the legal definition I have got. It is on that basis that I am going to advise the Committee—both on that basis and on the substance—not to accept the Opposition Amendment. But I do not want to make any false claim here. It is true that the Government Amendment would still leave those few people who may be transferred to a job not the equivalent of their previous employment earning a lesser salary than before, and it is for those people that


the compensation provisions, for better or for worse, are available.
I should like to leave the whole question, which is a very complicated one, about the exact definition of what is or is not equivalent and the exact definition of the effect of compensation for consideration under the order making power. It is a complicated subject which will need to be discussed with the employing organisation and the staff associations. Before orders are made under Clause 82 we shall inform ourselves in detail of the sort of case the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington was making about his hypothetical children's officer to make sure that all these factors are taken into account before orders are made.
Let me come to the substance of the case here. It is true that under local government reorganisation, if it is to be effective, there is bound to be a big impact on the staff, but let us, too, recognise that the purpose of local government reorganisation is to strengthen and not weaken local government, and the outcome, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, is more likely to be greater opportunity than lesser. But this generalisation is no comfort to individual officers who may find themselves with less good employment, and that is why I think we should focus for a few minutes on those people, particularly chief officers and senior officers of the counties, who may feel some jeopardy about their future employment, because it is this section which is most at risk.
4.45 p.m.
I would say here that, although there will be some who will be entitled to compensation because either they are redundant or their employment is not equivalent to what it was before, we must bear in mind that 90 existing authorities being reduced to 33 larger authorities does not necessarily mean that there are to be large numbers of officers for whom room will not be found. Obviously, the larger authorities may well have chief and deputy chief officers who may be better paid and have more power and scope than chief officers and senior officers of smaller authorities, and on the details of this we shall need to be fully informed after close consultation before we come to make the orders.
I come to the claims of the staffs affected and what their position is at the

moment under the Bill. Really, the staff associations are, I think, asking for five main features to appear in the Bill for their protection. First, they are asking that each single member of the staff employed by any of the affected authorities just before the appointed day should have continuity of work in front of him. We are to some extent meeting this case. The Bill now provides that everyone employed by the local authorities concerned shall be transferred to one or another of the new authorities.
Secondly, the staff, particularly senior staff, are anxious that those people who stay on with counties or loyally to finish jobs with authorities which are disappearing shall not be penalised by finding that the queue has been jumped and there are no posts vacant for them when they come to seek their next employment. It is particularly with this sort of consideration in mind that the staff commission is to be set up. As the Committee will remember, the staff commission is now mandatory; it is no longer at the discretion of the Government.
I hope that I shall shortly be able to publish at least the name of the chairman of the staff commission. It is to this sort of problem that the staff commission will straight away be requested to address its mind. It is most important that loyal staff should not be penalised for their loyalty to disappearing authorities.
The third protection which staff naturally seek is that there should be some guarantee over a period of years—a period of something like three to five years has been mentioned—of their getting continuity of employment at their existing salaries. It is here, really, that the Government begin to find themselves at odds with what the staff ask. We are thinking here not just of the local government of London, but of local government all over the country, and although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington was very persuasive in saying that the numbers would only be small and that, therefore, the cost to the public purse would be little, it still would be a very serious thing for the Government to concede that people should be paid for a number of years to carry out a job which they were no longer doing, which they were no longer employed to do. We really cannot concede that point,


anyway at this stage. I am quite prepared to think about it yet again.
Then there is the fourth protection which the staff claim, their claim that those who transfer to work with new authorities should take with them their existing pay and conditions of service. That is particularly the claim of the L.C.C. staff association, that the Greater London Council should be required initially, for the transitional period, to adopt the pay and conditions of service of the L.C.C. The Government Amendment goes some way to meeting this case, but only some way. It does say that whenever staff are transferred, even if it is not to an equivalent job they shall carry with them their conditions of service; that is to say, whether they are temporary or permanent, and their hours of work, their leave arrangements, their sickness arrangements, and the like.

Mr. Lubbock: And superannuation?

Sir K. Joseph: I will come to superannuation in a minute, as a separate subject.
What the Government are not willing to concede is that the particular conditions of the L.C.C. should be carried over to the Greater London Council even for an initial period. Although the Government were not willing to concede that, the Standing Committee took the bit in its teeth and last week defeated us on this point. However, there is an Amendment later to delete that error of judgment when we reach the Second Schedule. I ask the Committee now to recognise that the Government have already gone a long way to meet the case about conditions of service put forward by the staffs. The hon. Member for Orpington asked about superannuation arrangements, and the staff have naturally sought safeguards for these. Of course, I undertake that they will be protected, and this will be done by order.
That is the state of play. The difference between the Government and those who are urging the requests of the staff is really limited to two features. First, the Government are not willing to put upon the public purse the cost of a salary previous to the appointed day for a man or woman who, after the appointed day, is transferred to a job that is not equivalent. For such people there are

compensation arrangements, and the Government will go into such arrangements in great detail with the staff associations and future employers before making orders under Clause 82.
Secondly, the Government are not willing at the moment to contemplate requiring the Greater London Council to give, even for an initial period, the pay and conditions now enjoyed by L.C.C. staff transferred to it. But, on the other hand, we shall be debating this further, no doubt tomorrow, on a later Amendment. I have shown how far the Government have gone in the Bill as drafted, in our own Amendments and in our acceptance of others, to protect the staff and meet their requests. But there are two sticking points—the first on the main request of the staff associations and the second concerning the L.C.C. staff association alone.
The House should contemplate the effects of local government reorganisation not only for Greater London but over the country as a whole, and should recollect that there are compensation provisions which have been carefully worked out with staff associations to provide for any of the admittedly few cases where equivalent employment is not found. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition Amendment will not be pressed and that, if it is, it will be defeated and that the Government Amendment will be approved.

Mr. Weitzman: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. Suppose a servant leaves my employ and I agree to reemploy him on the same conditions. Is the right hon. Gentleman claiming that conditions do not include pay?

Sir K. Joseph: I am advised by the lawyers that for this purpose it does not include pay.

Dr. Alan Glyn: What will happen about the capital sum given to a person in compensation for the loss of what he might have received without these changes?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot summarise the exceedingly complex compensation code in this way. It is a very formidable document.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington)


moved his Amendment extremely adequately but the term "same conditions" in the Government Amendment requires further explanation by the Minister. One would have imagined that "conditions" included salaries and remuneration. If an advertisement in the Press offers "good conditions of employment", one does not expect to find that luncheon vouchers and free train fares are provided but a salary of only £100 a year. That would be surprising.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The Government Amendment also refers to "the same tenure" in covering conditions of service.

Mr. Lubbock: The phrase I am referring to is "on the same conditions". I should be glad to hear from the Minister that the word "conditions" includes pension rights.

Sir K. Joseph: Whether it does or does not, I give a firm undertaking that pension rights are protected and will be protected by order. I will take further advice on this matter.

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister's reply shows that we do not really know what we are talking about when we discuss the Government's Amendment. Before we come to a conclusion on either of the Amendments before us, we must have a more precise statement about what is meant by the words "same conditions".
One can pursue this question on other aspects. For example, does the right hon. Gentleman say that, in spite of the fact that a person may be transferred to a job in which he will not get the same salary, he will get the same car allowance? I believe that the custom in certain local authorities is to grade the car allowance on the assumption that the cars of certain higher officers have a higher capacity. Then there is the position of an officer transferred from a defunct authority to a new one where, in every respect except that of salary, the conditions of employment are the same.
The right hon. Gentleman emphasised his agrement with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that the number of such people involved would be very small indeed. But, in that case, why cannot he accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member? Surely the only

possible argument that he can put against it is financial. If he accepts the thesis that the number involved will be very small he should have been able to form some idea of the cost. Perhaps he will enlighten us. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a very valid point but the right Gentleman made no comment on it.
I hope that I am not out of order in referring to it, but the Railways Board, in its compensation arrangements, has provided that when a person is transferred to a lower grade he should retain his old rate of pay for five years. The Minister ought to envisage similar arrangements for staff affected by this Bill, where, indeed, financial considerations are not so urgent as they are on the railways.
The right hon. Gentleman also admitted that the definition of the words "similar duties" will present great difficulties. I have thought about this myself and I endorse his view. I do not see how this is to be done. I shall not quote figures because an illustration I can give makes an obvious enough case without them. Supposing that three existing local authorities are integrated. At the moment each has a housing manager but there can be only be one housing manager in the new borough. One of them gets the job and another becomes deputy housing manager. Which is the more responsible job—to be housing manager of an urban district serving a population of 80,000 or deputy housing manager of a new borough serving a population of 250,000? I defy any hon. Member to answer that sort of question off the cuff.
The difficulty here is that any answer given today must be entirely subjective The Staffing Commission could well look at this matter, but I can see that it will result in endless argument between the representatives of the staffs and the new authorities. For these reasons, the Committee should reject the Government's Amendment, which does not in any way adequately deal with the problem.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not concede that people should be paid for work they were not doing and that he was not willing to put any such charge on the public purse. That is a


surprising view for him to take, for he would not be breaching a principle. He has been doing something similar every month. I have with me an Order which came into operation on the 7th February last. It is No. 261 sent out under the seal of the Minister and signed by one of his civil servants. It is an Order which sets up a water board to deal with the Northallerton and Dales area, and it provides:
As from the day of transfer the Board shall take over and employ every officer or servant who immediately before that day is employed by a constituent council wholly or mainly in connection with the water undertaking of that council or by an existing board (and who is willing to enter the service of the Board) on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which he was employed as aforesaid.
It then goes on to lay down the various aspects.
This is one of several orders which the Minister makes every year dealing with the transfer of water staffs and the staffs of local authorities employed in their water undertakings. It seems to me that in this case we are coming to a position where if a man is employed in a section of the local authority dealing with water supplies and there is an amalgamation he will be guaranteed the same conditions as he enjoys at the moment. As I say, these are orders which are being made every year. Another such Order came into operation on 11th February, 1963, which set up the East Shropshire Water Board, in which, I think, the same words are used. It says:
All the staff shall be transferred on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which they were employed by a transferor council or the company, as the case may be, immediately before the appointed day.
Therefore, as I say, this sort of thing is going on all the time.

Mr. Skeffington: If the Amendment which we have proposed is not accepted it may have the effect that when the staff of the Metropolitan Water Board transfer its members will come in under worse conditions than their colleagues employed by other water undertakings.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot see how the Minister can provide for the transfer of the L.C.C. staff under one set of conditions and then provide for the transfer of other staffs under different conditions, staffs who over the years have had a comparable agreement with the L.C.C. Indeed, one staff has used the conditions of

the other staff to bolster up its claim. I do not see how the Minister could transfer them on different conditions from those provided for the L.C.C. staff or on different conditions made under the Order.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and if I can save the time of the Committee, as we are working on a timetable, I will do so. I did say—perhaps the Committee did not hear me clearly or perhaps I did not make the matter clear—that while it might be difficult for me to move in the direction desired by the hon. Gentleman, I would reconsider the whole point in the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I then said that there would be certain difficulties about imposing on the public purse the payment of the salary of a man who was not doing the job for which the salary was originally designed, but in the light of the argument advanced I undertook to consider the matter. I would point out that I am advised that the Opposition Amendment fails completely to achieve its purpose because I am advised, again by the lawyers, that "salary" is not covered by the term "conditions". As I say, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene.

Mr. Reynolds: I did not get that impression from the latter remarks of the Minister, because the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be a serious thing—and he would not be willing to do it—to put on the public purse the cost of paying salaries when the people concerned were not doing the work. The Minister is now saying to the Committee that he is going to look at the matter. But he has already said that he is not willing to do exactly what we are asking. It is a double-edged way of dealing with the matter.
I agree that the debate is governed by a timetable, but that is not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The Essex Water Bill, which will be before the House, sets up a private company under various councils and places an obligation on that company to give transferred servants the same salaries, emoluments and conditions as they previously enjoyed. This is being done all the year round for water board staffs employed by local


authority water undertakings. I cannot see why the people employed in the one authority, the Middlesex County Council, who are doing work other than of water supply should be treated differently.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As I moved an Amendment during the Committee stage which had something in common with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), I should like to say a word or two on the subject. As I understand the matter, both the Opposition and the Government propose that, where possible, transfers shall take place on what one might call level terms, that is to say, similar work, similar conditions and similar remuneration. The difficulty arises in those exceptional cases where a person has to be transferred to do less responsible work than he was doing before the date of transfer.
The first Amendment proposes that those transfers should take place on what may be called a mark-time basis of remuneration, that is to say, that the person concerned should carry his existing remuneration with him and stay on that rate of remuneration until events overtake him. My right hon. Friend's Amendment would not give that, but, instead, it would leave the individual concerned to get compensation under sub-section (3) of the Clause. As I understand it, that compensation is to be payable to anyone who suffers loss of employment or loss by diminution of emoluments. It seems to me that, assuming that the compensation is full and fair, there is nothing financially between the two Amendments. There may be a considerable difference in the way in which the compensation is paid.

Mr. Lubbock: The compensation provisions do not give nearly as much protection, because a person could suffer a very substantial drop in income and the compensation would represent only a small fraction of that loss.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman says that without any knowledge of what the actual provisions are. Of course, the drop in salary might be for only a year or two whereas the compensation might be payable for the rest of the person's life. If the compensation

is fair, it will compensate fully. It seems to me that there may well be circumstances where a lump sum might be much better, fairer and more acceptable than some rather artificial method as that proposed in the first Amendment. For that reason, it seems to me that there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the individual himself for having the Government scheme rather than that proposed by the Opposition. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has brought this scheme forward because I believe it will do better justice for those concerned than that proposed in the earlier Amendment.

Mr. M Stewart: The Minister's speech has made clear what a small matter it is, from the point of view of the public purse, that divides us. The simple question is this. When persons are transferred to duties which are not held to be similar duties, are they to have the same pay as they are now receiving? That is the straight issue. The Minister has narrowed the matter still further by giving the Committee a categorical assurance that he will safeguard the pension rights of those persons. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has considered what is involved in that.
Supposing, as I think is usual, that the amount of pension is determined by the amount of salary which a person has been drawing years before he retires. Is the Minister going to say, "Here is a man transferred to duties that are not similar. As a result, his pay goes down"? If that is so, then, following the normal working of pension arrangements, his pension would drop too. Is the Minister saying that he will take special action to see that such a person's pension does not drop but remains what it would have been if his salary had been unchanged? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, I do not think that he has power to do that as the Bill now stands. I think that he may have pledged himself more than he realises and given a pledge which he cannot carry out unless he goes further and says that a man who is transferred to duties not similar shall get the pay which he is now receiving.
That is really all that divides us, and everyone is agreed that from the point of view of the public purse and from the administrator's point of view it is a small matter, and that the only difference is that


we should not then have the very tricky question of defining what are and what are not similar duties. That will present many headaches. But if it is small from the point of view of the public purse it may be very grave from the point of view of the small number of individuals concerned—more grave than is realised by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)—because we know the nature of the compensation terms that the Minister is proposing. They are not set out in the Bill, but we know what they are. One of their provisions is that the compensation shall not in any circumstances exceed two-thirds of the loss of salary. That would mean that if people are left not protected in the way that we propose to protect them they might be perceptibly worse off.
If, for example, a senior child care officer earning about £1,350 leaves the L.C.C. and, in the new set-up, becomes a borough child care officer, will he be regarded as carrying out similar duties? I am glad that I shall not be a member of the court that has to answer that question. But if the answer is that the jobs are not similar it might mean that the man would suffer a loss of £250 a year under the Minister's compensation provisions. The sum would naturally vary according to the length of service. That is what is in issue for the people concerned. That is what we are up against; it is a very small issue from the point of view of the public purse but a very grave one for the individuals concerned.
When I refer to the public purse, whose purse do I mean? We are not asking the Exchequer to pay this. A very little of it may come indirectly out of the Exchequer—otherwise we should not be dealing with the matter on recommittal—but in the main this will be met by local authorities. I think that I am right in saying that no local authority objects to our proposal. They will have to work with these people, and they do not want to have new staffs smarting under a sense of injustice from the start.
In those circumstances it is not for the Minister to step in and tell local authorities, in effect, "You must do these people this injustice". I know that sometimes, even when the effect on the public purse, locally or nationally, is

small, it may be right for the Government to resist, on the ground that a wrong principle is involved. But that case cannot be pleaded here. That argument has been decisively destroyed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). The principle that we are urging upon the Minister is one that is accepted, as has clearly been brought out. If we do not accept that principle we shall create anomalies, as between one local authority employee and another, to which far more serious objection could be raised on the ground of principle than could any objection raised to what we are proposing.
The Minister says that he is advised that our Amendment does not do what it sets out to do. The Amendment was not constructed without advice. I have taken it literally word for word. This Amendment was put down in Committee by a group of hon. Members opposite; it was not put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have followed the advice of hon. Members opposite and have put down their Amendment.
I must correct the Minister immediately on one point. This is not the matter on which we defeated the Government. This matter is one in respect of which we did not press the Amendment—but only because the Minister made a speech in which he expressed a sort of half or quarter agreement with us. We therefore thought it proper to leave the matter to be dealt with on Report.

Sir K. Joseph: I think my punctuation went wrong. I thought I made it clear that the point in respect of which the Government were defeated was that which transferred to the G.L.C. the L.C.C. conditions.

Mr. Stewart: I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should say' anything about that on this point. That point will come up for discussion on a different Amendment.

Sir K. Joseph: I talked about it because I was listing the claims of the staff associations, and that was part of a claim by one of the staff associations. I was reviewing what the Bill does about those claims.

Mr. Stewart: I agree that when one is supposed to be talking about an Amendment concerning something that a staff association has not got it is far more agreeable to talk about one in respect of which it is getting what it wants. But in Committee we did not press this matter to a vote, because the Minister made conciliatory noises, although he did not promise to go the whole way with us. He does not promise that now.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Did not the Minister also say that the proper way of dealing with this matter would be by compensation? Having pointed that out, is it not clear that this Amendment would involve depriving those concerned of certain compensation rights? That is the real point at issue.

Mr. Stewart: With great respect, it will not deprive them of their rights to compensation; it will put them in the position where they will not need compensation. Since compensation cannot exceed two-thirds of what they lose, they are clearly in a better position under the Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: It is no good the hon. Member's denying that. The only person who could deny it is the Minister—but I do not think that he disputes it. Without the Amendment these people will suffer a loss. By way of compensation they may get two-thirds of it back, but they cannot get more. If we save them from incurring the loss altogether we are surely benefiting them more than if we say: "You may suffer a loss, but by compensation you will regain two-thirds of it." That is the issue, and the hon Member cannot get away from it. It is not a question of two different methods achieving the same result. The result achieved by the Amendment is different from that achieved by compensation, and the compensation result is decidedly less attractive, financially, to the persons concerned.
It is understood that the words "terms and conditions" include salary. The Minister says that the word "conditions does not, and he may be right. But is he also advised that" terms and conditions" does not include salary? He will probably agree that we know

what is in dispute between us. If the Committee divides on the Amendment and it is carried it will be expressing the view that these men should get the same pay, and if the Committee expresses that view it will clearly be the most strict obligation of honour on the part of the Government to make sure that the wording of the Bill in its final form is such as to fulfil the wish of the Committee. I ask the Minister to consider what is involved.
The difference between us is very small, in terms of the effect upon the public purse, but it is a very grave matter to the individuals concerned. The weight of argument and the principle is in favour of effecting the change which we want effected. We hesitated to press this matter to a Division before, because the Minister said that he would consider it again. If he cannot now say that without bothering about the legal wording he agrees that these men should go on receiving the pay that they are now receiving, and that he will make sure that in the end the Bill produces that result, I do not see how the Committee can avoid dividing on the Amendment.

Dr. Alan Glyn: We all agree that, in principle, the object of the exercise is to make sure that the remuneration of the staffs, whether by compensation or by continuation of terms and conditions, remains substantially the same. It seems to me that it is entirely a question of how we should do this. The Minister suggests that it should be by way of compensation, but the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) rightly says that compensation may be only two-thirds of the loss incurred in transferring. But if the compensation is a capital sum it must be considered in an entirely different way.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks there will be a great deal of difference to the public purse whichever way we do it. We are in a difficulty, because the Amendment does not cover the point which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would wish it to cover. I ask my right hon. Friend whether or not the difference between the two sides can be adjusted, as he hinted earlier, thereby avoiding a Division on the issue.

Sir K. Joseph: This is certainly more important because of the possible effect on a relatively small number of individuals than the number of individuals concerned might indicate. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Fulham {Mr. M. Stewart) said, the effect on the public purse might be relatively little, while the effect on the individual might conceivably be significant for that person. It is also true that we are considering something here which might set a precedent for other parts of the country and we should hesitate before doing something which has not been done before.
There are two things which have not been brought out in the discussion and which perhaps I should make clear. The hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) have been quoting—I have no doubt absolutely correctly—from the existing compensation provisions. They and the Committee will know that new compensation provisions have been under discussion with the local authority associations and the views of staff associations have been sought. Those new compensation provisions are very nearly ready. I am not able to tell the Committee categorically that the new compensation provisions will remove altogether the limitation as to two-thirds, but they are an improvement on the existing compensation provisions. That goes to narrow the existing difference between us.
The second fact is that arguments from the Water Act are not very powerful. It is true, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) indicated, that there is an obligation on a new authority to take over the staff of the previous authority at a salary not less good than previously, but there is no requirement on the new authority, so far as I am aware—speaking without that particular Order in my hand—to keep that person for more than a day or so. It can at once, if it wishes, transfer the man to a less good job or dismiss him, in either of which cases the compensation provisions under the Water Act would come into effect.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman is now rather casting doubt on the standing of water boards set up under his seal. Would he not agree that any

local authority servant can be dismissed at any time and that that is not an argument relating to this case?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the whole Committee will agree that if we were to put into the Bill a requirement to continue on a previous salary any employee of a previous authority it would be purposeless unless there were a period of time attached to that obligation. I am sure that this will appear sensible to hon. Members.

Mr. Reynolds: Why put it in the water legislation?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall have to look at the water legislation, but my own knowledge is that the water legislation contains a compensation code to meet just the sort of case where a present employee is given less good employment or is even dismissed.
I have undertaken, and I am undertaking, to reconsider this particular narrow point about the continuing salary for people not given an equivalent job. I quite see that it would have administrative advantages. I undertake to consider it again, although I cannot give a firm undertaking as to the answer I shall give. Therefore, I must expect the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to press his Amendment to a Division. I ask him, however, to reflect that his Amendment may not on purely legalistic grounds achieve exactly his purpose. I shall therefore have to ask the Committee to reject the Opposition Amendment on legalistic grounds, because it does not even achieve what the Opposition set out to achieve, and, if it were to achieve that, because on grounds of substance I think it would be against all precedent and possibly wrong to impose on local authorities an obligation to pay the same salary whatever that salary may be.
I have undertaken to consider the narrow point again in the light of the possible effect on a few individuals and to see that if necessary an Amendment is put into the Bill on a later occasion, but I ask the Committee to reject the present Amendment and to accept the Government Amendment which will follow.

Mr. Weitzman: Will the Minister say on what legal grounds the Amendment


in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is not a good one? Let him define the legal grounds.

Sir K. Joseph: That is a phrase behind which Ministers are justified in standing.

They are given legal advice, which means advice from the Department flowing back to the Law Officers.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 219.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Alnsley, william
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Barnett, Guy
Hill, J. (Midlothlan)
Popplewell, Ernest


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bennett J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Boyden, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bradley, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
King, Dr. Horace
Skeffington, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Chapman, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Lubbock, Eric
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stones, William


Cronin, John
McLeavy, Frank
Straehey, Rt. Hon. John


Crosland, Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dalyell, Tam
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Darling, George
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, Stephen


Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Taverne, D.


Deer, George
Mapp, Charles
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardlff, W.)


Dempsey, James
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, Norman
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Donnelly, Desmond
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Driberg, Tom
Mitchison, G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Monslow, Walter
Warbey, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Mulley, Frederick
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gordon Walter, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, Will
Winter bottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, G. A.



Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gunter, Ray

Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bossom, Clive
Cary, Sir Robert


Aitken, W, T.
Bourne-Arton, A.
Channon, H. P. G.


Aliason, James
Box, Donald
Chataway, Christopher


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Braine, Bernard
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (portsmth, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cleaver, Leonard


Barter, John
Buck, Antony
Cole, Norman


Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Burden, F. A.
Cooper, A. E.


Berkeley, Humphry
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Corfield, F. V.


Blggs-Davieon, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Costain, A. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Coulson, Michael




Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
James, David
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Crawley, Aidan
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C.
Ramsden, James


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridsdale, Julian


Duncan, Sir James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool.S.)


Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kirk, Peter
Roots, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kitson, Timothy
St. Clair, M.


Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Seymour, Leslie


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Forrest, George
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Foster, John
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sheet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Freeth, Denzil
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smyth Rt Hon. Brig. Sir John


Gammans Lady




Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gibson-Watt David
Longbottom, Charles
Speir, Rupert


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clampham)
Loveys, Walter H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Goodhew, Victor
Mac Arthur, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grant-Ferris R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tapsell, Peter


Green, Alan
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Rt,Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard(Croydon,S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maginnis, John E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Sir John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marshall, Douglas
Turner, Colin


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neil
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Webster, David


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hobson, Sir John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hocking, Philip N.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E.
Wise, A. R,


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woollam, John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, Percivall
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. Batsford and Mr. Pym.


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)

Amendment made: In page 92, line 13, at end insert:
(2A) The provision required by subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall include provision to secure that any person who on 1st April 1965 is transferred under this Act from the employment of one authority to that of another shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date and, while he is engaged in similar duties to those in which he was engaged immediately before that date shall receive not less salary or remuneration than that to which he was entitled immediately before that date.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84.—(LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRU MENTS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 94, line 6, after "district" to insert:
situated wholly or partly within Greater London".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment the Committee should also discuss the new Clause "Subsidiary functions of Greater London Council" and the new Schedule also entitled "Subsidiary functions of


Greater London Council". There can be a Division on the new Clause if required.

Mr. Corfield: May we also discuss at the same time, the following four Amendments?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is in order.

Mr. Corfield: These Amendments are all linked and their purpose is the same and twofold. The first purpose of the batch of Amendments is to extend the Clause by bringing within its scope provisions under which local authorities in Greater London may have functions which extend outside the area. Examples would be the functions which the G.L.C. will exercise as a main drainage authority in a sewerage area partly outside the Greater London area.
The second objective of the Amendments is to make it clear that local authority functions exercisable in the Greater London area in any of the authorities to be abolished may be transferred to any authority appearing to be appropriate. The purpose of these words is to make it clear that the various powers or functions can be transferred to the G.L.C. or to the London boroughs according to whichever is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) will remember that we discussed in Committee at some length an Amendment which I think was either the same as or very similar to his new Clause. I hope that these Amendments will go some way to meet him, although the Government's view still is that, having put this Amendment down, these local Acts should be gone through very carefully Act by Act to see which of the provisions are suitable far transfer to the London boroughs and which to the Greater London Council, bearing in mind that the London boroughs are more in the nature of county boroughs, much more so than the metropolitan boroughs, and, therefore certain county function may equally well be applicable to the London boroughs as they would be to the L.C.C. and may not therefore be applicable to the G.L.C.

Mr. Skeffington: Speaking for myself, I think that these Amendments tidy up the original Clause. But there is one

point which, I feel, might have been considered. I still wonder whether Clause 84 is not defective because it still appears to refer only to Greater London and does not allow the application of enactments to the sewerage area of the Greater London Council. I think that at some stage Amendments are probably required to Clauses 69 and 80. I put that on record as a matter which might be considered.

Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am advised that the Clause covers the point which he made, but I will look at it again. I am grateful to him for pointing it out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 94, line 29, after (b) insert:
transfer to any authority appearing to that Minister to be appropriate any functions of an existing local authority under a Greater London statutory provision which are not to become functions of some other authority under any provision of this Act except section 81 and this section. or under any other instrument made under this Act, being functions exercisable by any existing local authority abolished by this Act or exercisable in, or with respect to things or persons connected with, Greater London by any other existing local authority;
(c) (without prejudice to the last foregoing paragraph)".

In page 95, line 46, at end insert:
(aa) conferring on an existing local authority abolished by this Act functions the exercise of which is not restricted to a part of Greater London or to things or persons connected therewith; or

In page 96, line 5, at end insert "or(aa)".

In page 96, line 8, at end add:
and 'local authority' includes a joint sewerage board within the meaning of Part II of the Public Health Act 1936".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) wish to take a Division on his new Clause? It has been discussed with the last series of Amendments.

Mr. Skeffington: No, Sir Robert.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(THE LONDON BOROUGHS.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 104, line 41, to leave out paragraph 7.
I am sorry to have to deputise again for my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. This Amendment is almost on the same lines as the first Amendment that I moved this afternoon, namely, it is consequential on the insertion of Clause 85 which, the Committee will remember, in turn brings in the provisions with regard to the costs of public inquiries under the Local Government Act, 1933.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2. — (CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF GREATER LONDON.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 111, line 12, at the end to insert:
(cc) agree with any person for the production by that person of a work of art for acquisition by the Council.
In Committee, the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) pointed out that, although the Greater London Council will be given the power by the Bill to buy works of art, it will not have the power that at present the L.C.C. has to commission works of art. The Government accepted that this is a power which should be inherited by the Greater London Council, and the Amendment ensures that it will be.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 112, line 36, at the end to insert:

Capital expenditure, loans and borrowing by the Council

25A. The expenditure on capital account and lending by the Council and the borrowing of money by the Council for such expenditure shall be regulated by annual money Acts, the Bills for which shall be promoted by the Council and each of which shall make provision for a financial period consisting of a financial year (that is to say, a period of twelve months ending on the thirty-first day of March) and the immediately following six months.

25B.—(1) During any such financial period as aforesaid, the Council may expend on capital account for such purposes as may be mentioned in the relevant annual money Act such sums as the Council think fit not exceeding the amounts specified in that Act in relation to those purposes for the first twelve months and the last six months respectively of that period.

(2) In addition to any other money which the Council are authorised by any such Act to expend for any purpose in the last six months of the relevant financial period, the Council may also expend for that purpose

during those last six months any money which they are by that Act authorised to expend but have not expended for that purpose in the first twelve months of that period.

(3) Any money expended in the last six months of a financial period shall be treated as expenditure on account of the financial year comprising those six months.

25c.—(1) During any such financial period as aforesaid the Council may lend to persons of any class mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph such sums as the Council think fit not exceeding the amounts specified in the relevant annual money Act in relation to loans to persons of that class for the first twelve months and the last six months respectively of that period.

(2) The classes of persons referred to in the foregoing sub-paragraph are—

(a) the London borough councils;
(b) any other persons having power to levy or to issue a precept for a rate within Greater London or to make any charge on a rate leviable within Greater London or to take or charge within Greater London any due or imposition in the nature of a rate;
(c) the governors or managers of educational institutions, including special or approved schools;
(d) committees of school treatment centres;
(c) the governors or committees of voluntary hostels, homes or other establishments;
(f) persons desiring to borrow money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1923 or the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958;
(g) persons of any other class specified in the relevant annual money Act.

(3) In addition to any other money which the Council are authorised by an annual money Act to lend to any class of persons in the last six months of a financial period, the Council may also lend to any persons of that class during those six months any money which the Council are by that Act authorised to lend but have not lent to persons of that class in the first twelve months of that period.

(4) A loan made under this paragraph during the last six months of a financial period shall be treated as a loan made on account of the financial year comprising those six months.

(5) Subject to the provisions of any enactment relating to the borrowing powers of the person concerned, any person shall have power to borrow from the Council any money which the Council are by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this paragraph authorised to lend to that person.

(6) Money lent under this paragraph shall be repaid to the Council with interest within such period as the borrower (with the consent of the Minister where his consent is necessary to the borrowing) and the Council may agree but the period shall not exceed—

(a) in the case of money lent to a person borrowing as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) (f) of this paragraph, eighty years;
(b) in any other case, sixty years.

(7) Money lent under this paragraph may be made repayable either in one sum or by instalments or by a series of equal annual or other instalments comprising both principal and interest or otherwise as may be agreed between the Council and the borrower.

(8) Where the Council lend money to a person whose power to borrow is subject to the consent of the Minister, the consent of the Minister to the borrowing of the money shall be conclusive evidence that that person had power to borrow the money at the time when the consent was given.

25D. Notwithstanding anything in section 195 of the Local Government Act 1933, the Council may borrow money for the purpose of any expenditure on capital account or lending if, but only if, both the expenditure and the borrowing for the purpose thereof are authorised by an annual money Act; and where any such borrowing is so authorised the consent thereto of the sanctioning authority within the meaning of Part IX of the said Act of 1933 shall not be required.

When the Bill was originally drafted, it was thought that the Greater London Council would wish to raise its finances by the normal loan sanction procedure used by local authorities under the normal procedure. There was no intention to deprive it of the method of raising money that is used by the L.C.C. by an annual Money Act which passes through the House of Commons.

During the progress of the Bill it has been represented to the Government that the Greater London Council will almost certainly inherit the skilled officers concerned from the London County Council, that the method of procedure of the L.C.C. has been a useful and convenient method of getting authority for its finances, and that it has not taken up much time of the House of Commons.
Consequently, the Government now introduce this Amendment, which will give to the Greater London Council the right to carry out the same procedure of an annual Money Act for authorising its financial borrowings as is now used by the London County Council.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 112, line 36, at the end to insert:
26. The Council shall pay, out of the general fund, such scale of salaries to its members as the Minister shall, from time to time, by order prescribe.
I move this important Amendment very briefly, in view of the time. I say at

once that it is not an Amendment that I should want to press to a vote. I think that it is necessary to raise it so that we can get a declaration of opinion from the Government on this important question. I believe it to be a right principle that, with any body which is supposed to be democratically elected, the electorate should be in a position freely to choose whomever it thinks is the fittest person to sit. The case for paying any kind of public representative rests on the question whether it is necessary to pay him in order to give the electorate freedom of choice. It is the electorate's rights rather than the comfort of Members of Parliament or councillors that one consults when one decides to make membership of any elected body paid.
May I give an example from my own experience which, I think, will make this point clear? I served for a short time as a co-opted member of the L.C.C. Education Committee. I took the place of a former co-opted member of that Committee who had served until what would have been the end of his normal term. He was by occupation a bus conductor. He was a member of the Fulham Borough Council and a co-opted member of the L.C.C. Education Committee. It was just possible for him at the same time as he was earning his living as a bus conductor to do that public work. It would not have been possible for him to be a member of the London County Council. Still less would it have been possible for him to be a member of the Greater London Council.
Yet he was the kind of man who, if he had not died prematurely, might well have been regarded by his fellow citizens as fit to serve on either of those bodies. He was a man of great distinction of mind. One of the sections of the Fulham Public Library—the music section, of which we are very proud—is named after him because of the interest he took in it. I have looked at this question all the time from the point of view of Alan Jiggins. Will it be possible for the public to elect somebody like that if it wishes to? The answer is that, with the size of the powers and the scope of the Greater London Council, it will not be possible for somebody doing ordinary industrial work to be a member of it, even if the electorate keenly wishes him to be and even if he is in every sense fitted


for it. That cannot be regarded as a permanently satisfactory position.
I know all the difficulties which can be brought up. We shall be asked, "How much ought the salary to be?" The reason why I have put in the Amendment—
such scale of salaries … as the Minister shall … prescribe"—
is that obviously the varying value of money makes it necessary to make such a provision.
There is a more serious difficulty. If this provision is made for the Greater London Council, will not some of the councillors of the great cities feel that the same argument applies there? I think that we ought to notice this. If we always say that we can never do something new until we do it on a nation-wide scale, the rate at which we make improvements of any kind can be very slow indeed. It very often happens in history that we begin an innovation in one place because the demand for it there is almost overwhelming. We then build on it from there to such extent, and to such extent only, as may be required.
It may be true that the case I have just made out for the Greater London Council could be made out for the Birmingham City Council, but I am not at the moment arguing that. I am merely saying that, from what we know of the powers of the Greater London Council, this provision ought to be in the Bill. There are some public bodies for which this clearly is not a necessary provision. A man can do almost well any kind of work and still be an effective member of a metropolitan borough council and, I would think, of any of the London borough councils in the Bill, though it would be a tight fit and he would have to be a very hard-working and public-spirited person. But so he should be.
However, he could not really be a member of the Greater London Council, particularly if it were for an inner London borough, with duties on the inner London education authority as well, and also ordinarily earn his living. The Minister is looking worried. I am saying that, if he is a member of the Greater London Council for an inner London borough, he will also be a member of the inner London education authority. His duties there will be very considerable.
That, fundamentally, is the case. We are not doing it in order to feather-bed the councillors. We are doing it in order to give the electorate freedom of choice. We do not want the electorate to find as time goes on that it can only choose people in certain special categories who are fortunately able to do this kind of work.
The argument is decisive in the case of London. I am not sure that it is a valid argument to say that we cannot do it for London because there are also the beginnings of an argument for it in other cities. We should accept the plain necessity for it here if the citizens of Greater London are to have proper freedom in the choice of their elected representatives. We shall be very glad to hear the Government's view on this matter, because the few words that the Parliamentary Secretary was able to say in Standing Committee were by no means wholly hostile to this idea.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Has the hon. Member any idea of what the remuneration might be?

Mr. Stewart: It could be put at the very modest figure of £750 a year, which is about the average industrial earnings. It could be argued that that would be too low, but I think that people generally would say of the figure of £750, "If you pay that amount then anyone who really wants to do the work can do it, will do it and will be able to keep his family at the same time". It is on the low side and it might be argued that it should be £1,000 a year—although I suppose that difficulties might arise if one offered, say, more than hon. Members of Parliament receive. As I say, I was thinking in terms of £750 to £1,000 a year.

Sir K. Joseph: I will not delay the Committee with a long disposition on the question of paying local authority members. The Government have recognised that while the present system of travelling and subsistence expenses and financial loss allowances where members have incurred a loss is, on the whole, working well, there are a number of difficulties that justify a reconsideration of the whole problem.
I have, therefore, asked the local authority associations to prepare for a full discussion with my Ministry on the


whole question of the present method of making good either expenses or financial losses of local authority members. During that discussion opinions will obviously be expressed on this whole question as to whether any pay is needed for local authority members. It would be a very big departure—and I accept that the hon. Member for Fulham has not sought to deploy the whole case—and we are at the moment relying on an element of dedication. That is to some extent evidenced by the willingness of people to give up some earning time and capacity.
I cordially agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that we cannot allow this to go so far as to prevent individuals, who the citizens might choose, from offering themselves. I cannot agree with him that London is so unique that we should try to legislate for London or to consider London regardless of the rest of the country. It is true that the Greater London Council will be a uniquely powerful and comprehensive body in many of its powers. It is true that it will still retain for the inner boroughs the personal services of education and other personal aspects such as housing, on its overspill side. But I am sure that hon. Members will agree that other large local authorities in this country—the biggest county boroughs principally—do have a wide range of powers in fact, a wider range than the Greater London Council will have, including all the personal functions which involve them in so much casework. I would have thought, therefore, that the only sensible thing would be to consider the whole question on a nation-wide basis.
I hope that these discussions with the local authority associations will be fruitful, and I shall, in due course, report the results to the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Fulham will be content with that interim answer and the knowledge that the Government have recognised that there is something here to discuss.

Mr. Driberg: I appreciate the Minister's point about the local authority discussions, but it seemed to me that the matter that he raised before that—the question of doing this on a nation-wide basis and his remarks about the other

big local authorities—indicated that he was either missing or evading a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart)—the point that one must not say that because one cannot do everything at once one should do nothing.
The Minister referred to the Greater London Council as "a uniquely powerful and comprehensive body". He then suggested that its members would, perhaps, not be uniquely busy since other great local authorities would obviously have more or less comparable powers.

Sir K. Joseph: No, not quite as widespread, but with many more personal functions to discharge than the Greater London Council; those involving the constituency case load.

Mr. Driberg: I can see that. But, on the other hand—as the right hon. Gentleman must agree, for he has said it all along—this is the most revolutionary change in the whole local government system that has taken place in this century or for a long time. It would seem not unreasonable to accompany that change—to make one of its corollaries—the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham for the payment of members of the Greater London Council.
I am glad that, on the whole—so far as one could gather from the right hon. Gentleman's carefully objective words—the Minister's tone was not unsympathetic. I am sure that he does not himself want the Greater London Council to be comprised solely or mainly of retired persons, useful though their contribution may be—he surely wants sonic younger people as well—and people with private means which enable them to do public work without having to earn their living in other ways. I hope therefore, that these conversations with the various local authorities will not be too long delayed and that the Minister will keep his promise of reporting to the House on any agreement that may be reached.

Mr. Mellish: Does the Minister envisage, as a result of these discussions with the local authority associations, the possibility of something being done in another place?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think so, nor do I wish to suggest that because we are


not going to do something about London at once—because we should not act on London alone—we will, therefore, defer any action which is shown to be necessary. If action is shown to be necessary—and it will probably be shown to be such on a national scale—then, no doubt, the Government will initiate action as soon as possible. This is not deferring anything which is shown to be necessary.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst): I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend's remarks on the whole question of remuneration and to note that the matter has been referred to the local authority associations. I hope that in their deliberations it will be possible for them to consider people who, up till now, have not qualified for the daily payment which can be claimed for loss of employment.
As I understand it, most of the allowances made by local authorities in this connection are isolated to employed persons who can claim loss of a day's work or loss of other employment. Thus, such people can gain the appropriate allowances for that factor from the local authority. There are other people who cannot claim in this way. I am thinking of a chiropodist or a physiotherapist who might desire to work for a local authority but who, in so doing, may lose a morning's fees. Someone with a small wool shop, for example, may be an excellent person to be on a local authority, but to do this work he or she would need to pay perhaps a friend on a part-time basis to look after the shop.
I hope that the inquiry mentioned by my right hon. Friend will be wide enough to consider people who although not technically employed parsons, are nevertheless, of a modest income. Although they may be self-employed in this respect, it casts them money to attend local council meetings and perform other duties and they are at present losing money they would otherwise receive.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I am delighted that the Minister accepts, or seems partly to accept, the principle behind the Amendment. If, after this review that he has promised will take place, the Minister decided that he wanted to make payment to some local government members, he would need amending legislation and, in

the case of this Bill, some Amendment would be then necessary. The Amendment only refers to such salaries
…as the Minister shall, from time to time, by order prescribe.
Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman might not make any orders at all until the review had taken place, acceptance of the Amendment would save the time of the House at a later stage, after the review had taken place, because the Minister would already have been given the necessary power. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would think about this again and accept the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. F. Harris: Anybody who has been involved in local government work for many years will obviously concede that we are here dealing with a very important point, but I think that the consideration given by the Minister and the Government should be on the basis of the loss of normal remuneration that the ordinary person loses by giving up time to local government work. There is much in my right hon. Friend's point about dedication. It would indeed be very sad if people joined such a body as the Greater London Council as a full-time appointment and on account of the remuneration offered. This would be a disturbing feature, and would be very much misunderstood both in London and the country generally.
I hope that the Minister's mind will be directed more to making up loss of remuneration when some one gives up a few hours a day. Such a person should be compensated, and so should the person who has to pay someone to do his normal work. I hate to use the word "expense"—it seems always to be misunderstood nowadays—but it is a question of some reasonable remuneration to make up pay lost or expenses incurred rather than full-time remuneration.
That was why I asked the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) what figure he had in his mind. I know I made a quick request, and perhaps, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman was not able fully to consider it, but he worried me a little when he spoke in terms of £750 or £1,000 as basic remuneration. We all know that some people dedicate themselves to a particular task to a greater extent than do others, but acceptance of


the principle of the Amendment could, unless we were careful, introduce a rather disturbing feature.

Mr. Charles Curran: I want to reinforce what has been said about the need to look into this subject. I hope that when the Minister makes his inquiry he will consider not only the payment of expenses but the payment of salaries. I do not think that he need necessarily exclude that payment from consideration. The one very unfortunate omission in the Herbert Report was that it did not examine the methods of manning municipal government on the other side of the Atlantic. American cities have found over a long period that it is not possible to get a sufficient level of competence without some sort of payment, and we have to face that question here. I do not say how we should answer it, but we have to look at it.
It will not be possible to get the people of the ability we want to administer London's affairs unless we are prepared to recognise that there are those of ability who will not be able to serve unless they receive some remuneration. The pool of ability for local government is shrinking all the time and has become not much more than a puddle in many parts of London. I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that and not to narrowly circumscribe this inquiry.
Our primary purpose in this Bill is to reactivate municipal democracy in London, and we must remember that if we are to make municipal democracy a reality we must have on the Greater London Council people of sufficient ability to deal with bureaucracy. Otherwise, we shall have a new kind of sham, a mere puppet for the officials, because those concerned are not intellectually equal to the work required of them. I therefore think that the Minister should inquire, within not too narrow limits, into what sort of salaries or expenses should be paid, so that on the Greater London Council we can get people equal to the job and not prevented from doing it by financial considerations.

Mr. Driberg: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the most important point just made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), and will also consider the interpretation of

this proposed Amendment given by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that he could not do anything about this in another place because the discussions with the local authorities would not be over in time for that; but if he looks carefully at the words of the Amendment, as the hon. Member for Orpington suggested, it might be that he could adapt them slightly and do something very similar for an Amendment in another place—perhaps saying "may pay" instead of "shall pay", or something like that. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I see in what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) says a certain danger. If someone were paid a salary of £750 for this work it might almost be considered a whole-time job. I prefer the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). A great number of people are precluded from local government work by the fact that they are not sufficiently remunerated for the time they lose. That is particularly so in the case of self-employed people. When the Minister asks for recommendations, I think that he should particularly look into the possibility of compensation for loss of employment rather than the offer of a fixed salary. I should not like to see the spirit of public service in local government replaced by the idea of someone doing this work for a fixed salary.

Mr. M. Stewart: Having started this hare, I am much indebted to hon. Members on both sides who have taken part in the discussion. I appreciate what has been said by the hon. Members for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) about certain dangers inherent in this proposal, though I must say that the method of remuneration for time lost can also be very tricky in administration.
I tried my hand at three or four drafts of this Amendment before reaching that now on the Notice Paper. Even so, I was not entirely satisfied. Nevertheless, I am delighted that it has the possibilities pointed out by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), and I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) suggested, the Minister should consider whether, when


this Measure goes to another place, he could not table some kind of "taking power" Amendment so that, after his inquiry, he could act or not act as seemed appropriate.
I do not think that we are ever likely to lose the voluntary spirit in local government. I am certain that we shall never decide to give people such salaries for doing the work as will cause any large numbers to do it for the money—if anyone enters this House for that purpose he must be very soon disillusioned. The real point is that if we want to give the electorate a free choice we have to provide a certain amount of money for those who do the work, if the work is more than a certain amount.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for having told us of the inquiry he is starting. I quite recognise that what he says commits him to absolutely nothing more than holding the inquiry. Nevertheless, the hare has been started and, judging by the usual time lag between the starting of an idea and its execution, there is quite a sporting chance that the second generation of Greater London councillors may be adequately provided for in this respect—

Sir K. Joseph: I am frightened that the hon. Member may be going to withdraw the Amendment before I fetch a little jar of cold water which I have available. I shall be grateful, therefore, if he will allow me to make an intervention before he winds up.

Mr. Stewart: By all means.

Sir K. Joseph: I was so alarmed by the unaccustomed welcome which my words received from the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that I thought back to what I had said. Perhaps I have given too favourable an impression of my attitude. I would not like to mislead the Committee. I do not start off with any great liking for the idea of paying members of local authorities. I am starting discussions with the local authority associations because the present system of making good financial loss, whilst generally working satisfactorily, is showing some defects. If out of those discussions there should emerge a plain need to make a radical change we shall have to consider it and I shall report back.
Meanwhile, I warn the Committee that we ought to look not only to the capacity of men and women, who might want to stand for membership of local authorities, to fit in the work and still earn a living, but we also ought to ask the local authority associations to look at the conditions in which their members have to work. This is very relevant. It might well be that until such points as changing hours and conditions and the service given to members by their officers and—to touch a controversial note when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is back in his place—the quantity of casework which local authority members choose to take on, are looked at as well, it is not sufficient to say categorically that the only answer is to pay local authority members. I was delighted to find that at least on one point in the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) and I are in agreement.

Mr. F. Harris: I should like to tell my right hon. Friend that I voted with him just now too.

Sir K. Joseph: Wonders will never cease.
I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) in what she said about looking at the financial loss allowance, and I would disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) about the reduction of the pool of talent to a puddle. The pool of talent is much larger than it was because of education and improved standards.
What has been happening is that local authorities have been fishing with less success in this larger pool. To some extent this reflects the greater competition for people of talent and vigour. There are more outlets now than there were in the past for their energies. It also reflects to some extent the times of meeting of local authorities and, to a small extent, the subject which we are now discussing. I repeat that, whilst announcing the inquiry, I should not like to mislead the Committee about my attitude, and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for allowing me to say this.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The discussion has shown that there are a good


many things to be considered and that it would not be right to prejudge what the answer should be. The hare having run, I should like to put it back in the hutch. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4.—(MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1933.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 126, line 40, at the end to insert:
23A. In sections 198 (1) and 213 (1), the references to sums borrowed as therein mentioned shall be construed as including references to sums borrowed by the Greater London Council under paragraph 250 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
It would be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in line 45, at end insert:
24A. In section 218, in the definition of "sanctioning authority", after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "in relation to the Greater London Council, the Treasury or, in relation to any other local authority".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Very well.

Mr. Corfield: These Amendments are consequential on the Amendment in Schedule 2, page 112, line 36, which, as the Committee will recall, substituted for loan procedure the money Bill procedure at present practised by the London County Council. The effect of the Amendments is to apply the provisions of the 1933 Act, mentioned in the first Amendment, to the money Bill procedure in the same way as it applies under that Act to the loan sanction procedure. The effect of the second Amendment is to make the Treasury the sanctioning authority for determining the loan repayment period for the Greater London Council, which preserves the existing arrangement which the L.C.C. employs.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 45, at end insert:
24A. In section 218, in the definition of "sanctioning authority", after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "in relation to the Greater London Council, the Treasury or, in relation to any other local authority".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6.—(AMENDMENTS AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 IN HIGHWAYS ACT 1959.)

6.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I beg to move, in page 144, line 41, to leave out from "the" to the end of line 43 and to insert:
words 'the authority' there shall be inserted the words 'or, in the case of any area in Greater London, either the local authority or the highway authority for either of the streets in question (not being the Minister)'.
(2) In section 252 (2) after the word 'authority' there shall be inserted the words 'or highway authority'.
The Amendment puts into effect the general intention which lay behind an Amendment tabled by hon. Members opposite to Schedule 6 in Standing Committee, which we agreed to accept in principle but which unfortunately we did not have time to discuss. The position is that Section 152 (1) of the Highways Act, 1959, as amended by the Bill in the form in which it left the Standing Committee, enables all local authorities to require the corners of new buildings at corners of streets to be rounded off or splayed out. In Greater London these powers will be available to London boroughs and to the City, but they will not be available to the Greater London Council because that council will not be a local authority for that purpose.
It would be some advantage if we were to give the Greater London Council as a highway authority these powers to round off the corners of new buildings at the junctions of Metropolitan roads for which the Greater London Council is the highway authority. I think that this is all I need say to explain the technical point, but we were happy when it was raised by the Opposition and we are glad to do something about it at even this late stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 8.—(MODIFICATIONS AS FROM 1ST APRIL 1965 OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HOUSING.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 156, line 20, at the end to insert:
(c) in relation to the Greater London Council, as if Greater London were a county and the Greater London Council were the council of that county.


The Amendment merely fulfils an undertaking given in Committee to apply the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to the City.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in line 36, at the end to add:
15. In the application to the Greater London Council or a London borough council of section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Housing Act, 1961—

(a) the financial year 1965–66 shall be—

(i) the relevant financial year in relation to any dwelling completed in that year, and
(ii) the earliest financial year which may be determined by the Minister under paragraph 5 (2) of that Schedule;
(b) where that year is the relevant financial year, the references in paragraph 6 (1) (a) and (b) of that schedule to houses within the local authority's Housing Revenue Account for the last year preceding the relevant financial year or, as the case may be, for the relevant financial year shall be construed as references to houses within the local authority's Housing Revenue Account on 1st April, 1965, or, as the case may be, on 31st March, 1966.
This is a technical Amendment of a transitional nature which deals with the calculation of housing subsidy under the 1961 Act. The Committee will recall that under that Act the rate of subsidy paid to local authorities for houses built for approved needs is calculated by reference to the housing revenue account of the preceding financial year. Clearly, in setting up completely new authorities there will be no previous financial year for this provision to bite upon. The effect of the Amendment is to make the subsidy calculable on the basis of the current year.
In the second part of the Amendment the proposal is that the gross value of the authority's houses, instead of being based on an average of the two preceding years as it is under the 1961 Act, which clearly cannot apply here, should be based on an average of the values at the beginning and the end of the first year.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(GREATER LONDON AND THE GREATER LONDON COUNCIL.)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out "aldermen".
It has been suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that certain other Amendments could conveniently be taken with this one. I have in mind particularly the Amendments in Schedule 2, page 106, line 30, after "returning", insert "twice".
In line 33, after "returning", insert "twice".
In line 40, leave out "one" and insert "two".
In line 43, leave out "a councillor" and insert "two councillors".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Yes, that is so. I think that it would also be convenient to the House to discuss with these Amendments those in Schedule 2, page 105, line 21, leave out "7" and insert "5".
In line 21, leave out from "1933" to "shall" in line 22.
In line 23, leave out "vice-chairman and aldermen" and insert "and vice-chairman".
In line 28, leave out "county aldermen or".
In line 29, leave out "aldermen or".
In line 30, leave out "as the case may be".
In line 34, at end insert:
(d) any reference to aldermen were omitted.
In line 40, leave out sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).
There may, if required, be a Division on the Amendment in Schedule 2, page 106, line 30, to which the hon. Member has referred.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This means that we are discussing two matters: first, whether to increase the number of councillors on the Greater London Council and, secondly, whether the Council should have any aldermen. Under the Bill, the Greater London Council is to consist of 100 councillors and 16 aldermen. The effect of all these Amendments would be that the council would have 200 councillors and no aldermen.
If the number of councillors were not increased beyond 100 and the council consisted of 100 councillors and nothing else, it would undoubtedly be not sufficiently numerous to do its work properly with all its committees. Indeed, the total of 116 is short measure. Therefore, if we do not increases the number of councillors, we are fairly well bound to keep the aldermen in order merely to have enough people in the council chamber.
It would be much better if we were free to consider the question of having aldermen on its merits and not tied to having them because there are not enough councillors. It was with that purpose in mind that my hon. Friends and I tabled Amendments to increase the number of councillors. In Committee, we discussed the question of aldermen, about whom several opinions are held. For my part, I think that on balance it would be reasonable to start off the new Council without aldermen.
On the whole, it is true to say that aldermen in local government have fulfilled neither the hopes of their friends nor the fears of their criticis. It would not make a tremendous difference whether or not we have aldermen, but many people feel that the procedure whereby people are indirectly elected is not basically democratic. Unless overwhelming advantages can be shown from having aldermen in the new body, there is no reason why we should have them. On balance, I favour not having aldermen.
The increase in the number of councillors is important. Although the Greater London Council will have only limited responsibilities in the social services, none the less it has wide housing, planning and traffic responsibilities, some social responsibilities and, over part of its area, an educational responsibility. By the time it has finished, it will have a good many committees. Trying to fit 100 councillors over all the work would be a very tight fit.
How, then, can the number be increased? The trouble was that if we increased it from 100 to anything less than 200, we should have to consider again how many came from each borough, and all the intense wrangling that goes into making up the First Schedule of the Bill would be reopened.

By doing it as our methods suggest, none of that difficulty would arise. We would simply make every constituency that will return one Greater London councillor a double-member constituency returning two councillors, in the way that a London County Council constituency returns three members.
In local government, there is an advantage in having constituencies which return more than one member, because a member of a local authority, unlike a Member of this House—unless, of course, he is a member of the Government—is something of an administrator also and in consequence, of necessity, something of a specialist in certain parts of the council's work.
If we have two members for each constituency, it might happen that one of them is busy on committees dealing with traffic and transport and that another is much versed in matters of housing. It is useful for the constituents to have at their service two people with different specialist knowledge. If we are increasing the size of the Council, that is an argument in favour of doing it by having double-member constituencies.
Since the Minister was so cautious when we were discussing anything which could be done to relieve the financial anxieties of members of the council, we need not fear that we will burden the ratepayers unduly if we decide to have 200 Greater London councillors instead of 100. Two hundred would not be too big a body to do the work properly. A great deal of the most important work will be done in the committees of the Council, which will be of a convenient size. Here again, in our brief discussion of the matter in Committee, I got the impression that the Government certainly were not rejecting the idea out of hand. I shall be interested to hear what they say about it.

Mr. F. Harris: I did not have the privilege of serving in the Standing Committee on the Bill, but I find the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) an extraordinary turn round from what I expected. I regarded the Opposition as being so opposed to the Greater London Council that I am surprised to find that the trend is now to increase the number of councillors and to make the Council


such a substantial body as, in effect, to add to the difficulties of the London boroughs in the powers that the Council might eventually take as time goes by. To enlarge a body of this kind would give it much more importance and is, therefore, contrary to my point of view. I am anxious to limit the number to what is already provided in the Bill.

Mr. M. Stewart: This is an important point. Had the hon. Member been in the Standing Committee he would have seen why many of us take this view. Under the Bill, the Greater London Council will be a powerful body, whether we like it or not. To make it too small will not make it less powerful but would merely have the result that it used its power badly. That cannot be to anyone's advantage.
We do not want this body to be created at all, we do not want it to have the powers that are being given to it, but since the Government insist upon creating it and giving it those powers, it is important that it should at least be able to use them with some semblance of competence. That is a perfectly logical position to adopt.

Mr. Harris: I respect the hon. Member's views that, having reached the stage that the Government are seeing the Bill through, his mind is turning to making the Council work as effectively as possible. I have not been encouraged quite so far in that direction. My opposition against the Bill as a whole is so considerable that, obviously, I am not in favour of any enlargement of the number and I would prefer the limitation to 116.

6.30 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: We are faced with a dilemma. It is generally agreed that the size of the Greater London Council should be related to the number of constituencies. It is also acknowledged that the Greater London Council will not have the full range of personal services for which to be responsible, although it is true that it will retain responsibility for overspill housing and, in the inner London area, for education.
What I must emphasise, after the thought that I have given to the subject since our brief discussion in Committee, is that if there is a danger in having the Greater London Council too small, there

is also a danger in having it too large. Obviously, if it is too small the committees will not get the benefit of the cross-fertilisation of members who sit on more than one or two committees. Obviously, if it is too small the members responsible for sitting not only on the committees but on sub-committees will find it very difficult to do their homework properly and make a positive contribution. Also if it is too small it will make more difficult still the problem of attracting the right talent and vigour for service on the Greater London Council.
But let us look at the correlative dangers of having the G.L.C. too large, People of vigour and talent will soon discover that they sit on large committees with too many other members and rarely get the opportunity to catch the chairman's eye. If it is too large, people will find that they do not get enough opportunity to perform the service for which they enter the Greater London Council.

Mr. Reynolds: Why does it follow that the committees have to be large? I see no reason why doubling the size of the membership of the authority need make any difference to the size of the committees.

Sir K. Joseph: It must follow, unless it is suggested that we invent committees—which I am sure the hon. Member does not suggest—purely to keep the members of the G.L.C. busy. I take it that there will be from 13 to 15 or 16 committees. On this assumption, the number of committee members will vary exactly in relation to the number of committees of the Greater London Council. Therefore, I say the more members there are, the more people there are on a given committee and the less the opportunity for participation in a meaningful way by individual members.
I take it, therefore, that we are still where we were, namely, that we would like to increase the number rather more than it is now, but I still feel chary about increasing it to as much as 200, even taking the benefit of jettisoning the aldermen on the G.L.C.
We should take comfort, before finally deciding, from the experience of the county boroughs. I know that it is not relevant to bring the experience of the county boroughs into all the subjects that we are discussing, but here, surely, it is relevant. The county boroughs, with large populations, are responsible for


most of the services for which the G.L.C. would be responsible, and a number of additional services as well. Yet they manage to tackle these jobs with a membership not very different from that which we are giving to the Greater London Council. Birmingham has a total membership, including councillors and aldermen, of 156; Leeds 112; and Sheffield, 100. I realise that if we calculate these figures in terms of representation per member, we get astronomical numbers on the Greater London Council, but the answer to that is that the London borough is the immediate authority with which the citizen will normally expect to deal.
If I may come to the Greater London Council, we would expect, as I was saying, that there will be about 15 committees. Suppose that each committee has an average of 20 members, which is the average that the London County Council has at the moment. That would give us about 2½ committees per member. That is two for some members and three for others. Taking into account the service on sub-committees which would be involved for many of them, I do not think that this would set too heavy a load on the shoulders of each member.
I should have thought, therefore, that we would be wiser to stick to the number in the Bill, which means keeping the aldermen. Without discussing the merits of the aldermen involved in the 116, I do not think anybody wants to make the number lower, unless it be my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris). Except in the case of the finance committee, the G.L.C. will have the power to co-opt up to one-third of the members. Without saying that 116 is the perfect number, I feel that, on balance, it is preferable than moving up to 200.
I hope that the House will be content for the arrangement to stand as it is, and that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Skeffington: The Minister's statement is disappointing because he said nothing about the fact that the Greater London Council would have to apportion its numbers to inner London education. This is a tremendously heavy responsibility. As I pointed out in the Standing Committee, we are dealing with

a group of about 450,000 children, and if we take all the teachers, plus the instructors employed in evening institutes, we get some idea of the teaching staff involved.
There are about 1,300 school buildings within the area, and if we add 60 or 70 institutions for further education that are not likely to get other status, and, therefore, have been taken out of the educational control of the authority, we see that this is an enormous burden. At present, in addition to the main education committee there are five or six subcommittees of the education committee of the London County Council, and if one is a member of that body, as I have been on the education committee, this in itself probably takes up a day a week, particularly when one adds the visits that one ought to make to some of the establishments not only inside the County but outside, and will still exist inside the Greater London area. This accounts for 40 members of the 100 who will comprise this body, so the strain will be fairly considerable.
Then there will be about 15 main committees. I should have thought that even with the aldermen, the Minister was spreading them very thinly over the ground. From my experience of the London County Council, where there are about 21 major committees and I believe 18 other committees with 147 members, it is difficult to get them manned effectively. Not many members are in the position of being able to attend more than one or two major committees, and it seems to me that the Minister has omitted educational considerations. When we consider the planning, sewerage, roads and licensing functions of the Greater London Council, the Minister is to ask these members to take on a heavy task. I hope that he will have another look at the matter.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In Standing Committee, we discussed this point very fully. I think that the arguments were brought out very clearly, the main point being not political but practical, namely, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has just said, whether sufficient people can be found to sit on the committees.
The other important point which was brought out in Committee was that if


we could have done away with the aldermen and had the extra numbers as elected members, we would not be in the position of being obliged in the inner London ring to select our candidates by qualification. As I see it, every selected member of an inner London borough will have to sit on the education committee. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated assent.

Dr. Glyn: This means that both major parties contesting must choose somebody with educational qualifications, since he will have to sit on the education committee. There is a case, therefore, for dropping the aldermen and increasing the representation so that each constituency will have a maximum of two representatives per constituency.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member will have to come into our Lobby.

Dr. Glyn: We shall have to see what the Minister says; first things first. But I think there is a point here, and I do not think it weakens the Bill in any way. In fact, it has a lot of practical advantages for both parties.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I know that the Minister will have considered the arguments I put to him in Committee, and I do not wish to add to them. I only ask him now to give full attention to the representations made by the Willesden Borough Council along the lines of those arguments.

Mr. Reynolds: I am horrified at the Minister's lack of knowledge of exactly what the situation is and how many meetings people will have to attend. He almost brushed the education committee aside, ignoring the fact that it is a major committee. There will be at least

five sub-committees of the education committee, all of which will be the equivalent of a major committee of a county council or county borough council. The inner London borough members will have an impossible burden put upon them. It will be extremely difficult to find candidates who will be able to undertake the full work of the education committee and the work of the Greater London Council itself.

There is the further fact that the Minister is proposing at a later stage to bring the Metropolitan Water Board into this new authority. At present, this work involves the equivalent of full-time membership of a local authority for about 100 councillors. An enormous strain will be thrown on the members of the new Council who will have to do the work of the water committee, the education committee and all the other committees concerned with its wide functions.

I am horrified also by the Minister's notion of some sort of necessary relationship between the size of the Council itself and of its committees. There is no reason why, in any of the new boroughs or the Greater London Council itself, the committees should be any larger than they are now on the London County Council, irrespective of the total membership of the Council. We are here setting up a completely new local authority. Anything that happened in the past can be disregarded, if it suits us. My conception is that it should be a body run more on the lines of Parliament, meeting, perhaps, once a fortnight for debates, with small committees doing the detailed work.

Question put, That "aldermen" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 151.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[6.41 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Burden, F. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Allason, James
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Campbell, Gordon(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bourne-Arton, A.
Carr, Compton (Barons court)


Barlow, Sir John
Box, Donald
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cary, Sir Robert


Batsford, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Christopher


Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Biffen, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cleaver, Leonard


Bingham, R. M.
Buck, Antony
Cole, Norman




Cooper, A. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pott, Percivall


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J, K,
Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Corfield, F. V.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Coulson, Michael
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Craddock,SirBeresford(Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pym, Francis


Critchley, Julian
Jennings, J. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, James


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Robson Brown, Sir William


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson Timothy
Roots, William


Elliott,R. w, (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. Clair, M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Seymour, Leslie


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finlay, Graeme
Longbottom, Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Forrest, George
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


Foster, John
MacArthur, Ian
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stevens, Geoffrey


Freeth, Denzil
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gammans, Lady
McMaster, Stanley R.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gardner, Edward
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, David
Macpherson,Rt.Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Turner, Colin


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R, G.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Stratton
Walder, David


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Webster, David


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hobson, Sir John
Partridge, E.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wooliam, John


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hornby, R. P.
Percival, Ian



Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pitman, Sir James
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. McLaren




NOES


Alnsley, William
Chapman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cliffe, Michael
Ginsburg, David


Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)
Collick, Percy
Gourlay, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Anthony


Barnett, Guy
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Crosland, Anthony
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Benson, Sir George
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W.(Lelcs. S.W.)
Diamond, John
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bowles, Frank
Donnelly, Desmond
Hilton, A. V.


Boyden, James
Driberg, Tom
Holman, Percy


Bradley, Tom
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hough ton, Douglas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Finch, Harold
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Fitch, Alan
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)







Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mulley, Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Sir Barnett
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Noel-Baker. Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Stones, William


Jeger, George
Oram, A. E.
Stross,Dr Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Will
Taverne, D.


Kelley, Richard
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


King, Dr. Horace
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, w.)


Lawson, George
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Thornton, Ernest


Lewie, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Tomney, Frank


Lipton, Marcus
Popplewell, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin


Lubbock, Eric
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Warbey, William


MacColl James
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Weitzman, David


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
White, Mrs. Eirene


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wigg, George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, H,
Willey, Frederick


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, LL (Abertillery)


Manuel, Archie
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mapp, Charles
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Edward
Woof, Robert


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mendelson, J. J.
Skeffington, Arthur
Zilliacus, K.


Millan, Bruce
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Mitchison, G. R.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, Walter
Snow, Julian
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Morris, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Dr. Broughton.


Moyle, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO EXERCISE IN GREATER LONDON OF EXISTING LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNC TIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 38, leave out from "boroughs" to "any" in line 39.

In page 4, line 42, leave out from "thereof" to "a" in line 44 and insert:
and, whore that enactment extends to the City but does not refer to the Common Council, as including also ".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(PROMOTION OF BILLS WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS IN GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, after "power" to insert:
subject to subsection (1A) of 'this section".
I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment, in page 8, line 14, at the end to insert:
(1A) Before the Greater London Council include in any Bill to be promoted by them any provision altering the functions of the Common Council or a London borough council, they shall consult with the Common Council or, as the case may be, with that borough council or, if the provision relates to all the London borough councils, with any association or committee which appears to the Greater London Council to be representative of Chose borough councils.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Corfield: The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that, should the Greater London Council promote a Bill which affected the boroughs, it should consult with the boroughs before so doing. This proposal follows an Amendment put down in Committee by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney), which was not reached. It does not go as far as my hon. Friend's Amendment would have gone because my hon. Friend wished, in effect, to give the boroughs a veto, and this, we think, would be cutting right across the right to petition against a Private Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 14, at end insert:
(1A) Before the Greater London Council include in any Bill to be promoted by them any provision altering the functions of the Common Council or a London borough council, they shall consult with the Common Council, or, as the case may be, with that borough council or, if the provision relates to all the London borough councils with any association or committee which appears to the Greater London Council to be representative of those borough councils.—[Mr. Corfield.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 9.—(GENERAL DUTY OF GREATER LONDON COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ROAD TRAFFIC AND ABOLITION OF LONDON TRAFFIC AREA AND TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, to leave out from "satisfied"


to the end of the subsection and to insert:
that the Greater London Council have failed to carry out their functions in relation to the matters aforesaid".
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the powers of the Minister in respect of his authority over the Greater London Council. As the Bill now stands, he can revoke or vary an order made by the Greater London Council in respect of traffic regulation or the provision of parking accommodation. I put down a similar Amendment in Committee, and we had a reasonable discussion on it.
This is a matter of fundamental principle, and I am glad it has come back before the House. We take the view that, if the Greater London Council is to be the sort of authority which most of us wish it to be, as a traffic authority and a planning authority, it should be allowed to function without too much interference from the Minister.
When we put down a similar Amendment previously, the Minister said that he opposed it because he felt that there were certain circumstances in which the Minister ought to interfere in matters of this kind, and he gave three instances. He said that he thought that the Minister ought to act to protect third parties, individuals, and traders in the boroughs. He said that the Greater London Council would be a new and untried body in traffic management. It would probably make mistakes, and, therefore, it was right that the Minister should have certain powers over it.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that these powers would be used only in the last resort. I think that the examples which he gave of hypothetical circumstances in which the Minister might intervene were based on the Minister's guilty conscience. The Minister's own record in many of these matters is, as we know, very bad indeed.
There was the Highgate lorry scheme, for example, which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans) would know something about, which the Minister introduced without any consultation with public opinion. The Minister was very surprised to find that there was an outcry, a result of which he had to modify the scheme. I think that he had that kind of guilt complex when he thought

that the Greater London Council, unless he had some powers over it, might try to do the same sort of thing.
We do not hold that view. We believe that the Greater London Council, irrespective of what party controls it, would be very sensitive indeed to public opinion before it introduced any scheme. It would scarcely be necessary for the Minister of Transport to interfere and tell it what to do and how to do it. If it got to the stage that the Minister had to intervene, his own record is so bad that, quite frankly, we do not think that he is qualified to take these powers in the Bill. The Minister said that these would be only, what he called, reserved powers. He also said that the Minister should have powers sufficiently flexible to deal with the situations that might develop.
We do not think that those two arguments are parallel. After all the advice that we have taken on this matter, we ask the Minister to be far more sympathetic and understanding of what we have tried to do. It is not to deprive the Minister of the final say, because, to be quite fair, we realise that the Minister will have to pay for much of this, and, therefore, he should have a final say in it. We want to make sure that the Minister of Transport, especially the present Minister, will not have these powers because the Greater London Council will be looking over its shoulder all the time, wondering when, or how, the Minister of Transport will interfere.
Therefore, we say, firmly and frankly, that we think that the time has arrived when the Minister ought to give up these powers and accept our Amendment, which would mean that the Minister would have only default powers which would be restrictive. This we think is right and proper when dealing with a Minister of the kind that we have at present.

Mr. Hay: In view of the approach of seven o'clock the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) scampered through the explanation of what this Amendment was all about, and I had sympathy with him, but I wish that he had devoted more time to talking about the Amendment and less to making a number of provocative remarks in which he admitted openly that he was worried about these powers being in the hands of the present Minister of Transport.


Since the Greater London Council will not come into force for some years, the anticipation of the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will remain there is something that we all note. I do not wish to emulate his example.
I want to direct my attention to the Amendment. The words which the hon. Gentleman seeks to leave out have been the subject of a good deal of consideration. What we want to do is to give the Minister of Transport, as I said in Committee, the reserved powers to intervene if the Greater London Council either is about to go wrong over a traffic matter, or has exceeded its powers, or is not doing something that it ought to do.
We have throughout the Bill always taken the view that it is right and proper that the Minister responsible to this House should have these powers of intervention. I made it very clear in Committee that we did not intend to exercise these powers regularly and as a matter of normal course. The words that the hon. Gentleman would seek to leave out are, I admit, cumbersome. They read:

… circumstances exist which make it necessary for him "—
that is, the Minister—
so to do"—
that is, to intervene—
in order that the matters aforesaid may be secured, or may be secured only, in a manner and to the extent which is proper".

Mr. Mellish: Which powers are these?

Mr. Hay: The powers contained in the previous part of the subsection. The Amendment would simply leave it to the Minister to exercise his powers when he was satisfied
that the Greater London Council have failed to carry out their functions"—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 151.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Coulson, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Aitken, W. T.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Allason, James
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Critchley, Julian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Barlow, Sir John
Cunningham, Knox
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Barter, John
Curran, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Batsford, Brian
Currie, G. B. H.
Hay, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dance, James
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hobson, Sir John


Bingham, R. M.
du Cann, Edward
Hocking, Philip N.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duncan, Sir James
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Bossom, Clive
Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, B. P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Box, Donald
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, Hon. C. R. (St. Ives)


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes-Young, Michael


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Buck, Antony
Forrest, George
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Burden, F. A.
Foster, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Cary, Sir Robert
Gammans, Lady
Jennings, J. C.


Channon, H. P. G.
Gardner, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Chataway, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Chichester-Clark R.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glyn, sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cole, Norman
Grant-Ferris, R.
Kerr, sir Hamilton


Cooper, A. E.
Green, Alan
Kimball, Marcus


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Kirk, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Gurden, Harold
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Costain, A P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Langford-Holt, Sir John




Legge-Bourke, sir Harry
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lilley, F. J. P.
Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Litchfield, Capt. John
Peel, John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Longbottom, Charles
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, Sir James
Temple, John M.


Loveys, Walter H.
Pott, Percivall
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


MacArthur, Ian
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, w.)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


McLaren, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pym, Francis
Turner, Colin


McMaster, Stanley R.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfrles)
Ramsden, James
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Maitland, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Walder, David


Marshall, Douglas
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Marten, Neil
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Wall, Patrick


Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Rabson Brown, Sir William
Ward, Dame Irene


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Webster, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roots, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Mills, Stratton
St. Clair, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott,Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Seymour, Leslie
Wise, A. R.


Nabarro, Gerald
Sharples, Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Neave, Airey
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woollam, John


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Worsley, Marcus


Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John



Orr-Ewing, G. Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Speir, Rupert
Mr. Gordon Campbell and




Mr. Rees.




NOES


Alnsley, William
Grey, Charles
Morris, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mulley, Frederick


Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Barnett, Guy
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Lelcs, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Popplewell, Ernest


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, J. T. (westhoughton)


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reynolds, G. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, nt. Hon. C. W.
Short, Edward


Cronin, John
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, Anthony
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Deer, George
Lubbock, Eric
Sorensen, R. W.


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Spriggs, Leslie


Diamond, John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dodds, Norman
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Donnelly, Desmond
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taverne, D.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fitch, Alan
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, Frank


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Warbey William


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, Tudor


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David







Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Zilliacus, K.


Willey, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.



Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Clause 16.—(HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 21. line 44, at end insert:
and in the application of section 153 of the Highways Act 1959 to Greater London, the words ' the carriageway of' in subsection (1) thereof shall be omitted ".—[Mr. Hay.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(MODIFICATIONS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS ACT 1950.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

In page 26, line 18, at end insert:
(5A) In paragraph 5 of Schedule 7, for the words "in London" there shall be substituted the words "in Greater London".—[Mr. Hay.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(HOUSING POWERS IN GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 28, line 17, after "exercise", to insert "in any London borough".
The Clause provides that the powers which councils and the London County Council have may be transferred to the Greater London Council and may be exercised by that Council, till such time as the Minister makes an order depriving it of those powers, within the present L.C.C. area. The purpose of my Amendment is to enable the Greater London Council, till the Minister makes the order to deprive it of those powers, to exercise those powers in any of the new boroughs, not only the inner London boroughs, but, as I would hope and expect, till the powers are taken away, in all of the new boroughs, so that the powers should not be confined to the present L.C.C. area.
It was said in Standing Committee that I started off with the predisposition to favour the boroughs as compared with county councils or, for that matter, the Greater London Council. I completely accept this. I would much rather, on the whole, see powers given to boroughs than to the London County Council or to the Greater London Council which we are creating by this Bill. Nevertheless, I am personally in favour of two-

tiered government. I think that the days are past of the county borough, the walled city, providing all its services within its own boundaries, and we should realise that in certain circumstances there is definitely a case for a two-tiered authority, in this case the Greater London Council, to have certain powers which, nevertheless, some boroughs would jealously argue should be left solely with them.

In Standing Committee, we approached this question of housing with an Amendment which would have enabled the Council to be responsible for slum clearance. The Minister was opposed to that, and that Amendment was defeated. The Greater London Council will have a number of housing powers within its own boroughs and will itself be a housing authority, and the main purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Greater London Council to use those powers, which it will inherit, for slum clearance in the outer London boroughs as well, while the powers remain to be used.

This affects only a few of the outer London boroughs. In fact, one can safely say that it is a problem which affects few of the inner London boroughs. Slum clearance is a problem, I understand, from the figures published in the recent survey, which affects Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Poplar and Stepney, and perhaps to some extent some others, and though I am not saying that it is impossible for them, it is a difficult problem for them to tackle without assistance on the wider scale which the Greater London Council could give. I believe that a similar argument can be applied to some of the outer London boroughs—admittedly, only a few—which we are creating by the Bill. I think that a similar problem could be said to exist in Edmonton and Tottenham and the County Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham.

As things stand now we must expect the Greater London Council to come into existence, and we should enable it, as this Amendment would enable it, to assist the existing boroughs and county boroughs, and any other boroughs which require assistance with slum clearance, at least for as long as the Minister allows


that to happen. It could assist those boroughs in carrying out the slum clearance programme.

7.15 p.m.

I would suspect that the Greater London Council would not step in so far as East Ham and West Ham, Edmonton and Tottenham are concerned otherwise than the L.C.C. at present works. We know the sort of thing that happens. The Council would make the same sort of approach as the L.C.C. makes, sitting down with the borough authority concerned to see whether it could assist in the difficult task of slum clearance.

We on this side of the House believe that assistance from the Council might well be welcomed by some of the authorities trying to solve their slum clearance problems. On the other hand, they may consider that they are able, and they may indeed be able—we do not know at this stage—to cope with the problem themselves. The Minister may say they can, but I do not want to argue that now. I simply say that the services which the Council could provide should be available to those other authorities if they want the Council to help them, because I am sure that this is the type of function which would be conducted by the Council only in consultation and in agreement with the boroughs concerned.

I appreciate that the Amendment would give the Council other powers in addition to powers with slum clearance, but on this side of the House we are primarily concerned with slum clearance, and we would expect that in the use of all these powers the Greater London Council would consult the London boroughs concerned and get agreement. I am sure that this would impose no difficulty on the boroughs and would give the Council an opportunity to assist some of the outer London boroughs, an opportunity which will not be available as the Bill is framed at present.

I am not sure that my Amendment is as precise as I would wish, but we on this side are absolutely certain that these powers should be operable for as long as the Minister allows them to operate them at all, and I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) has made it clear that he has

principally in mind the slum clearance powers of Part III of the Housing Act, and he realises, as the House does, that the Greater London Council is, under the Bill, a Part V housing authority. It seems to me, looking at the problems which arise in connection with slum clearance, that the only factor which may prove of difficulty to these greatly enlarged boroughs as slum clearance authorities is the question of rehousing, and here, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Greater London Council has the powers to help any borough with its relets and, indeed, its rebuilding.
But the whole purpose of the provisions of this Clause giving the Greater London Council slum clearance powers within the L.C.C. area, as I am sure the House appreciates, was to enable the Council to carry on schemes which are either in an advanced stage of preparation or actually in the process of execution by the L.C.C. There really does not seem to be any logic in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this should be extended to areas where no such schemes are being taken over from the L.C.C. and where there will be much more powerful authorities as the principal slum clearance authorities. I would, therefore, suggest that this really goes quite outside the logic of this particular provision.
I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman has not made the case for the outer London boroughs, all powerful authorities, many of them comprising units which were themselves full housing authorities before the merger, and for giving the Greater London Council this extra power on top of the existing power to help with rehousing, and I would advise the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has talked of the Greater London Council carrying on where the L.C.C. leaves off, certainly in the inner London boroughs. Is he saying that the slum clearance powers will be left to the G.L.C.?

Mr. Corfield: I understand that the intention is that these shall be transitional powers and that once the whole set-up is running the London boroughs will be Part III housing authorities, when there will be no overlapping of authority.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman has not treated the Amendment quite as frankly as he should have done. Those of us who are from the inner London boroughs know that our slum clearance programmes could not be tackled without the help of the L.C.C. Even when our local authorities are merged with one another they will be unable to do the job by themselves. It is essential that the present powers of the L.C.C. should be retained in this case for ever, otherwise we shall never be able adequately to deal with slum clearance in London.
The hon. Gentleman said that at the moment there were certain schemes which would be left to the G.L.C. to complete but that after that its powers would end in the matter.

Mr. Corfield: I am afraid that I have misunderstood and misled the hon. Gentleman. I did not mean to imply that the G.L.C.'s power to help with rehousing would come to an end. As was pointed out in Standing Committee, the G.L.C. will have a pool of housing as far as we can foresee, even though at an early stage it will begin to hand over some houses to the boroughs. It will have a substantial pool of housing for a long time.

Mr. Reynolds: Nothing in this subsection gives any indication of a definite time. Apparently, the Minister will only have to make an order taking these residual powers away from the G.L.C. If the Minister wants to allow the G.L.C. to finish off what the L.C.C. has already started, it would be better to insert a date, for the L.C.C. has a programme which is settled for the next few years. If this subsection is supposed to cover such schemes, why should there not be a definite time limit? Such a limit could have been worked out with the L.C.C.
It is all very well to say that an authority is powerful because it has a population of 250,000 and so much yield from a penny rate. In that sense, it is powerful. But both in the London area and in other parts of the country, when it comes to slum clearance, and where an authority has an overspill problem, it is only as powerful as the smallest parish council prepared to allow development in its boundary under the Town Develop-

ment Act, 1952, for there is no other way in which it can act.
I agree that the G.L.C. will be a Part V authority and that by agreement with the boroughs it will be able to rehouse people dispossessed by slum clearance projects by the boroughs themselves. The problem of slum clearance affects only a minority of the London boroughs to a great extent. But the G.L.C. will be composed of members representing constituencies covering the whole area, although financially this particular housing operation will only be borne by the existing L.C.C. area. I cannot imagine that that area will be able also to finance housing generally in the new Greater London Area, or that its representatives on the G.L.C. will be particuarly disposed to provide houses for Outer London boroughs. Later on, the financing of this work will be borne by all the London boroughs and then the reverse will be true. I cannot see the members representing outer London boroughs being particularly happy about giving extra houses to inner London boroughs.
There is, therefore, danger that unless the Greater London Council is given slum clearance power, it may be under pressure from members representing various part of the area. For instance, there would be considerable struggle over the allocations if an extra large percentage of housing became available. That will be the case unless the Greater London Council, as the upper tier authority, is given specific responsibility for doing a certain amount of slum clearance.
While I accept much of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, I must point out that this problem in the inner London area—where some of the boroughs have peculiar problems—will be difficult to solve without the assistance of the G.L.C. The same problem, of course, applies to a limited number of the outer boroughs. All these boroughs should have available special assistance from the G.L.C.—certainly for longer than is contemplated by the Government as applying to a number of the inner boroughs.

Mr. Corfield: We are discussing the area rather than the timing, but the object of these transitional provisions is to ensure that they are continued until such time as the London boroughs have produced their own programmes and it can be seen how the two phase together.


But, of course, any Part V housing authority is obliged to compile its housing programme in relation to its housing need. I cannot, therefore, think that the G.L.C. will be able to fulfil that function if it tries to do it on a strict arithmetical principle irrespective of the slum clearance programmes the boroughs undertake, so that it finds itself with an exceptional number of people to rehouse. I consider that this is covered by the Part V powers.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—TRANSFER OF LAND HELD FOR HOUSING PURPOSES.)

Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 31, line 19 to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
(4) The Greater London Council shall submit to the Minister by such date, if any, as the Minister may at any time after 1st April 1965 require and in any event by not later than 1st April 1970 a programme for any transfers of housing accommodation vested in that Council such as are mentioned in subsection (3) (b) of this section which they propose to make and have not yet made; and the Minister may at any time after 1st April 1965 require any London borough council to submit a similar programme for such transfers of accommodation vested in them.
This Amendment is in compliance with an undertaking in Standing Committee which, I think, satisfied most hon. Members who had been urging that the G.L.C. should be under an obligation to initiate, at a fixed time, its programme of transferring some of its housing stock to the London boroughs or to boroughs outside Greater London in which the houses are situated. The Amendment requires the Council to present its programme not later than 1st April, 1970.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 33, line 7, at end to insert:
and in particular the Minister shall make regulations under this subsection with respect to any application which the local planning authority consider should be granted for permission for development inconsistent with the Greater London development plan referred to in section 25 (3) (or, as respects any period before that plan becomes operative, with the initial development plan referred to in section 25 (2)) of this Act.

This fulfils an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend that we would bring forward a provision to ensure that where a borough council wished to give permission to a planning application running counter to the Greater London development plan, it should be submitted to the G.L.C. before approval is given.

Amendment agreed to.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I beg to move, in page 33, line 16, at the end to insert:
(8) The Greater London Council, after consultation with the London borough councils and the Common Council, shall by regulations prescribe standards of plot ratio, density, car parking, daylighting and such other matters of a like planning nature in relation to applications for planning permission under the Planning Act as the Greater London Council shall think fit.
(9) A substantial departure from the regulations to be made under the last foregoing subsection shall for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Direction 1954 be deemed to be a departure from the Development Plan.
The Amendment seeks to ensure the provision, in regulations to be made by the Greater London Council, of common planning standards for use in considering applications for planning permission. The Bill makes no provision for co-ordination and consistency between the London boroughs for the day-to-day exercise of development and control. Only the broad policy can be laid down in the written statement on the Greater London Development Plan, and the drawback to this is that it is not susceptible to frequent amendment. Very important questions of standards arise, concerning such matters as car parking, plot ratio, and day-lighting, which are referred to in general terms in the written statement but which are not defined there. Further, they do not form part of the plan.
These matters are now kept under constant review and are amended from time to time by the planning authority, which is the London County Council. In the absence of any controlling provision in the Bill a number of different sets of standards could come into being throughout the Greater London area, with variations occurring on either side of borough boundaries. With 33 authorities operating in a continuous built-up area, all with more or less identical problems,


this lack of co-ordination and the consequent possible multiplicity of standards would be likely to cause confusion and inconsistency. We could well forecast a plethora of appeals to the Minister, which the adoption of the Amendment would avoid.
In Standing Committee, on 19th February, the Minister agreed that such matters as car parking, plot ratio, density of population and daylighting, were objectives which should be the subject of common standards. He went on to say:
Perhaps I ought to make it plain that we should expect the Greater London Council in its development plan to have a considerable written statement, and there is no reason why the written statement of the Greater London Council should not contain the common standards where it wishes to impose them, standards such as the London County Council already includes in its written statement. Sometimes they are not wholly common standards but are common to one area or another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 19th February, 1963; c. 325.]
I have already explained that the difficulty with the written statement is that it does not form part of the plan. It is difficult to have it kept constantly up to date, and to provide that it can be easily changed. If the Minister adopted the Amendment he would find that it would be for the benefit of planning in the Greater London area.

Mr. Corfield: I am not quite sure that I fully understand the hon. Lady's argument. As I understand it, the written statement is clearly part of the development plan. That being so, if standards concerning plot ratio, density and car parking are regarded as sacrosanct in any area they can be written into the written statement and thereby given statutory force. As I understand it, the hon. Lady's Amendment would substitute, for an entry in the written statement, a series of regulations—the effect of bringing in regulations amounting to the same thing as a departure from the written statement of the development plan.
I cannot see what advantage the Amendment provides. If the Greater London Council is anxious, over any part of its area or over the area as a whole, to impose certain standards as to plot ratio, density, parking or any other of these important but nevertheless subsidiary factors, it is open to it to do so. It is to the great advantage of the public generally that matters affecting develop-

ment and land use should be given publicity, and that an opportunity should be provided for members of the public to appeal and make their views felt. Where it is desired to have a rather rigid adherence to this type of standard the written statement of the development plan would seem to be the place to provide for it.
The Amendment introduces something half way between the written statement and the existing procedure, and provides for exactly the same powers as an inclusion in the written statement. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mrs. Corbet: The point is that if these matters had formed part of the plan in the written statement—which they do not, because the County Council was careful not to make it so, in order to avoid complexities, and so that Amendments and changes could be made to keep it in line with the necessities of modern times—all the statutory procedure that is involved in an amendment of the plan would have to be gone through, which might involve inquiries, and so forth. That would be a lengthy business, whereas these matters require to be dealt with reasonably quickly.
I am told that this kind of provision would be for the benefit of the public rather than the developers. I can assure the Minister that I have been told on very firm authority that if he does not give his planning authority an opportunity to make these changes a very difficult situation is likely to arise.

Mr. Skeffington: The Amendments to this part of the Bill are very important ones, as the Parliamentary Secretary will have realised from the sustained debates we had on this group of Clauses in Committee. Hon. Members on my side felt that it was very ironical that one of the most valid points made by the Royal Commission about the set-up in the Greater London Area was the fact that there were nine major planning authorities and nine plans, and that the lack of proper co-ordination between them was one of the causes for confusion in relation to traffic and other developments in the Greater London area.
In our view that threw some responsibility upon the Minister, because he had duties under the 1947 Act and the


amending Act of 1962 not only to review these plans, but to bring the authorities together, and, if necessary, co-ordinate their planning activities. Now, instead of having nine planning authorities we are to have 33, or 34— the City of London and 32 boroughs, and the Greater London Council with responsibility for making a general plan—so we shall also have a large number of separate plans for the London area.
As this seems to make a mockery of planning, and is certainly not the local planning arrangement outside London, we have sought to change the situation so that modern concepts of town and country planning shall not be departed from in this great area.
Our last desperate attempt to bring some sanity into this situation is our Amendment in Clause 24, to insert the new subsections (8) and (9). The first of those subsections would, broadly, enable the Greater London Council, after consultation, to prescribe certain common planning standards by regulation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) said, the reason why we have suggested the regulations rather than writing in a detailed statement in the development plan itself is that this would be a much more flexible arrangement. Whether or not this is the right way to do it, it would be generally accepted by the House that there ought to be common standards for the whole area. Most of the area of Greater London Council will be a continuous built-up area. At the moment there are in the Bill no satisfactory arrangements to ensure that common standards for density, daylighting and other matters which my hon. Friend referred to will be the same throughout the whole area.
Because of the lack of adequate time I do not want to go into great detail, but hon. Members can imagine the kind of impact it will make, quite apart from the practical consequences, if very different standards are adopted by the boroughs. Up to now they have had only very limited delegated functions and they have not had the kind of policy decisions to make which the Bill gives them. Therefore, we think that matters referred to in the Amendment, such as standards for car-parking, the amount

of density to the area, the provision for adequate day-lighting and provisions about height of buildings, all of which affect this great capital city not only in the inner boroughs, but right through the area, should be on a common pattern.
This is our last desperate attempt to bring sanity into what I can only regard as the Government's insanity and the chaos of its planning proposals. Unless there is a flexible planning arrangement for detailed standards, they cannot be altered except after considerable delay. It might be necessary to modify planning concepts in an area because of the building of a new road. It might be necessary quickly to modify densities or daylighting arrangements consequent on a development. Now, because in the County of London there is extremely effective planning organisation, with experts on it, it is often possible as developments go forward to undertake modifications and improvements in and near a major scheme.
That would not be possible under the arrangements of rigid statutory requirements written into the development plan. Because conditions are changing in this great city we want the flexibility which is suggested in the Amendment. It certainly will not be able to deal quickly with a changing situation if the provisions are written into a statement of the development plan. There is everything to be said for having regulations. All the escape clauses will be there. If anyone feels that the Greater London Council is operating them wrongly the Minister's residual powers will not be touched in any way. Flexibility will be there and can be used.
Another point which was referred to on a series of Amendments in Committee is that if the Greater London Council has general authority to prescribe regulations that will enable it to deal with the case of property on the boundaries of a number of boroughs. This is the sort of thing I described in connection with development at the top of Sloane Street, where three boroughs meet. That was possible because we had a planning authority with general authority to get the scheme agreed within the area of the three boroughs. I am not saying that that would be impossible under the Bill as drafted, but it


would be jolly difficult—if I may use such an unparliamentary word. The two subsections in the Amendment would make it easier. The boroughs would lose nothing. The common standard would affect the look of the place as well as being for the convenience of the public.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Corfield: I remind the House that, although the L.C.C. deliberately leaves these things out of the written plan, it is open to it, and will be open to the G.L.C., to write these standards into the written statement. It will be open to it to do so as part of the Greater London plan to which the boroughs have to conform.
I appreciate, of course, the force of the argument in favour of flexibility, but the plain fact is that the lessons of the last ten years or so show that the whole development plan is a much more difficult thing to fix, even for five years ahead, than most people thought five years ago. Therefore, the whole process of revision of plans will be in the pipeline permanently. There will be a permanent series of amendments and suggestions going through on the development plan as a whole, whether they are to do with a major new road which will affect standards of daylight and so on, or other matters. I do not believe that there is any logic in drawing a distinction between these standards and other factors which go into the development plan.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said that this was an effort to bring sanity in where there was insanity, but I cannot see anything more insane than to suggest that when we have the Greater London Council and the Greater London plan with the broad framework we should not plan the regions, whether they are sorted out in relation to London or anything else, as entities. The idea that we can do this without subdividing into regions is an illogicality. Not dividing out seems a wholly untenable proposal. I cannot see that inserting these provisions in regulations would give us anything which is not

in the existing system or would bring in anything desirable for the public outside the development plan.

Mr. Mellish: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said, this is a last desperate throw on the part of the Opposition. We believe that already the Government have planned this badly in the Bill. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) attacked us earlier and said that he could not understand why we were supporting the Greater London Council and wanting to give it real powers. Being good democrats and knowing that once Clause 1 has become law, as it were, the Greater London Council comes into being, it was obvious that if we were to get any sense out of the Bill we must make it a really effective body. That is why we put forward Amendments on the subject of transport and thought it a tragedy to split up the powers among the London boroughs. The same argument applies in regard to planning.
It is not enough for the Minister at this late stage to try to make a mockery out of this Amendment. I agree that it would have made more sense if the Government had had more sense and had realised that the G.L.C. should be the planning authority with genuine powers over the whole area. If we are to have uniformity—I am not talking about drab uniformity, but really virile uniformity—over an area such as this, this is the only way in which it can be achieved. The Minister has a perfect example before him in which each borough has powers over street lighting. As a result, we have a complete hotchpotch of street lighting arrangements. That kind of thing could be prevented if Greater London Council were able to deal with the whole matter.
For these reasons, we shall certainly take this matter to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 207.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Alnsley, William
Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bradley, Tom


Awbery, Stan
Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Fenner


Barnett, Guy
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara




Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Redhead, E. C.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)
Reynolds, G. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rhodes, H.


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Short, Edward


Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Small, William


Dodds, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, Julian


Donnelly, Desmond
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W,


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, R. J.
Taverne, D.


Fletcher, Erie
Millan Bruce
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, Waiter
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Tomney, Frank


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Frederick
Warbey, William


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Watkins, Tudor


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Weitzman, David


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Hilton, A. V.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Holman, Percy
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Winter-bottom, R. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Jay Rt. Hon. Douglas
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. Grey and Mr. Irving.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Aitken, W. T.
Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hastings, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Critchley, Julian
Hendry, Forbes


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Currie, G. B. H,
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hobson, Sir John


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hocking, Philip N.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, Charles
Hooson, H. E.


Black, Sir Cyril
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Bossom, Clive
Duncan, Sir James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Elliott.R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Box, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Braine, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brewis, John
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Finlay, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fisher, Nigel
James, David


Buck, Antony
Forrest, George
Jennings, J. C.


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Freeth, Denzil
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gamman8, Lady
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gardner, Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Channon, H. P. G.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Chataway, Christopher
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Cower, Raymond
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cleaver, Leonard
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Longbottom, Charles







Longden, Gilbert
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Coveys, Walter H,
Partridge, E.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Lubbock, Eric
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peel, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Macleod, Rt. Hit. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pitman, Sir James
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


McMaster, Stanley R.
Pott, Percivall
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Turner, Colin


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maginnis, John E.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
van straubenzee, W. R.


Marshall, Douglas
Prior, J. M. L.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Marten, Neil
Pym, Francis
Wakefield, Sir Waved


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walder, David


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ramsden, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Mawby, Ray
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Webster, David


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Stratum
Roots, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Seymour, Leslie
Wise, A. R.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sharples, Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woollam, John


Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'd &amp; Chiswick)
Worsley, Marcus


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John



Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Rees.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28—(BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST.)

Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 39, line 4, to leave out "Common Council" and to insert:
the town clerk of the City".
This and the new three Amendments are linked; perhaps we can take them together. They are all drafting, and give the right nomenclature to the gentleman who is the equivalent of the clerk in the City.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 11, leave out "Common Council" and insert "town clerk of the City".

In line 15, leave out "of that council" and insert "so prescribed".

In line 17, leave out "clerk to the Common Council" and insert "town clerk of the City".—[Mr. Corfield.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 30.—(LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORI TIES.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 43, line 1, to leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the Amendment in page 49, line 44, Clause 34, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Stewart: These two Amendments are both concerned with what are called

review Clauses—the Amendment in page 43, line 1, with the review Clause for the London education service itself, and the Amendment in page 49, line 44, with the comparable provision made for the youth employment service. I propose to direct most of my argument to the education service rather than the youth employment service, because I imagine I am right in supposing that, if it were agreed not to have the review for the education service, there would be little point in keeping it for the youth employment service. Of the two, although it would be invidious to talk about their comparative importance, the education service is much the wider and larger in scope. It is from the proposed review of the inner London education service that the whole argument stems.

The proposals for London education have gone through so many changes since the project of reforming Greater London government was first advanced that it may be difficult for members of the public, except those who had special reason to follow the matter, to realise where we now stand. May I briefly recapitulate the stages we have been through? The Royal Commission came out with a proposal to make the Greater London Council the education authority for the whole of the area but then proposed a very elaborate system for dividing responsibility between the Greater London Council and the boroughs. The result was so unworkable and would have resulted in so much mutual correspondence


and argument between the Greater London Council and the boroughs that the Government did not adopt that proposal, and I doubt whether it has any advocates today. That was one proposal gone.

The Government's next idea was to break up the education services of Middlesex and of the parts of Surrey, Kent and Essex that are brought into Greater London and make education there a borough service, and they proposed to do that for part of the County of London as well, although they argued at this stage that there should be a central area containing about 2 million people where there should be some sort of single authority. It was while this proposal was toward that the parents and teachers of London pronounced most emphatically on the matter and made it very clear indeed that they, who had the greatest and most immediate interest in the matter, and the closest knowledge of it, did not want to see the education service of the London County Council broken up at all. Meanwhile, the Conservative minority on the London County Council had a proposal for cutting up the L.C.C. education service into twelve pieces, one for each borough. To that also public opinion was decisively opposed.

The Government's next proposal, which became embodied in the Bill, was that the London County Council education service should for the time being remain intact, but, since there was no London County Council to run it, this special body—the Inner London Education Authority—had to be created.

The Government then added to that proposal, as if unwilling to depart from the idea of some day breaking up the L.C.C. education service, that at some date between 1965 and 1970 the Minister of Education should conduct a review of the London education service as operated by the Inner London Education Authority to see whether any part of it should be transferred to the boroughs. The idea of breaking it up to the boroughs was still kept as a possibility under the Bill. That is the so-called review Clause—or, rather, the two review subsections—which we now propose to delete.

That, then, is what is in issue. A new body is to be set up to run the existing

L.C.C. education service. The question we have to ask is whether that new body should do its work on the understanding that within five years or less of its starting its job it shall be subject to a review the result of which might be the complete break-up of the whole L.C.C. education service into twelve pieces.

There are several objections to this proposal. One is that nobody has been able to make a convincing case for breaking up the L.C.C. education service into twelve pieces. It has not been for want of trying. The Royal Commission started with a prejudice in favour of borough education services. It had to abandon the idea when it came to study what the L.C.C. education service is really like. It found that the range and variety of education which is needed in modern life cannot be provided if the education authority is too small and if an attempt is made to establish a multiplicity of education authorities in an area like inner London where the people are constantly in the course of their work and daily life moving across from one borough into another. The whole L.C.C. education service has grown up on the plan of treating this whole inner London area as one. The facilities have all been provided on that basis. A great many of the children seeking education cross the borough boundaries. The more diverse education becomes, the more that is true. In further education and in the provision of education for handicapped children the fact that the plan can be made over the whole county area is an outstanding advantage.

The Royal Commission, starting with a prejudice in favour of boroughs, came to the conclusion that that was not the right answer in inner London. The Government—I do not think it is unfair to say—starting with a prejudice against the London County Council would have liked to justify the proposition that the L.C.C. education service could be broken up. They also, when it came to the point, were not prepared to do it.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman paused significantly. I hope that he is not going to take my silence when he alleged that the Government started with a prejudice against the L.C.C. as any evidence of assent. We started with a desire, as evidenced, not to disrupt the education service in London as a whole.
I intervene only because the hon. Gentleman hesitated.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that I acquit him personally of that charge. However, this business did not begin with him. It began with the present Home Secretary, whose intemperate and foolish utterances at L.C.C. elections going back a great many years showed him to be a bitter enemy of the London County Council and with more regard for gratifying his feelings there than for the welfare of the people of London.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is departing from his normal high standards. That is a quite unjustified series of allegations which I will not waste the time of the House by rebutting in detail.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Then why intervene?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to rebut them. The truth of what I have been saying is known perfectly well to every Londoner. The significant thing was that, despite the tendency of the political friends of the present Home Secretary to refer to the L.C.C. regularly as an octopus, they were unable when they came to the point to provide a workable plan. To provide this education service they had to retreat from their original proposal of hacking off one-third of it and preserving the remaining two-thirds intact. Even the Conservative minority on the L.C.C. who wanted to break it up to the boroughs felt that they had to add to their proposal a suggestion for some kind of co-ordinating committee. Thus no one has been able to demonstrate that the education system would be better if it were cut up into the boroughs.
Everyone, even the most inveterate opponent of the L.C.C., has been led to the conclusion that it would probably be worse. In those circumstances we are entitled to ask just what is the point of playing about with this unprofitable idea any longer and by keeping the review Clause in the Bill. The stock argument advanced—and one on which the Parliamentary Secretary chiefly relied in Committee—was that the inner London education authority is a body unique of its kind, or sui generis

—a phrase one can mention when wishing to impart a little learning into the discussion—and that, therefore, one could not embark on it without making a special provision of this kind.
I do not remember, when the Metropolitan Police Force was created, that it was necessary to do anything of the kind, nor when a great many bodies peculiar to themselves were established. No such provision was provided when the Metropolitan Water Board was established. Moreover, this review Clause does not give the Minister more power than he could at any time exercise by looking at what was going on in his Department. If it was thought necessary, because the I.L.E.A. was a new body, that it should be subject to review, that was within the Minister's powers as Minister of Education and he could have done that at any time.
For all these reasons, we would like to know why this particular review should be made statutory. One is obliged to conclude that the making of it statutory implies something more like a definite intention to break the body up than to do anything else. That is why it is said, in effect, "This is a new body and the Minister of Education will, therefore, keep it carefully under review". It is to be a statutory review which must be done not at such time as the Minister in the ordinary discharge of his departmental duties might think best, but within five years. That is an extremely short period for deciding whether or not a new body is up to a job as complex as this.
There do not seem to be any convincing reasons for the review Clause; and one formidable reason against it was advanced by the Minister of Education himself in a letter which I had the pleasure of quoting in Committee. I would remind hon. Members who have not read every word of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee F what a resident in outer London wrote to the Minister of Education. He wrote, in effect, "It is true that the I.L.E.A. is a new body but, after all, the service it is running has been going for some time. The idea of haying a county service in inner London is not new. It is well established. What is new is what you are doing in outer London, where you are making education not a county but a borough service for the first time."


The writer of that letter was saying, therefore, "Why not provide some review of education in outer London to see whether it might not be better to bring it back into the county rather than into the borough form?" The Minister replied that it would be undesirable to do that because of the uncertainty it would cause to teachers and parents in the area. Apparently the feelings of teachers in the inner London area are of no account. This is obviously a very serious objection and it was made very serious by the comments of some Government supporters in Standing Committee who began to adduce various reasons why they thought that the review should be conducted.
Those reasons were, in effect, that they did not consider that the way the L.C.C on this or that matter had gone about things was the right way and that they and their party would like to see it done the other way. That was said, for example, about the organisation of secondary education and the appointment of school managers and governors. It must be realised that this is surely an extraordinary doctrine. It is extraordinary to say, "We have an elected body but we, as one political party, would like things done in a different way and we must continue to alter local government areas until we get the result we would like." The reiteration of that comment made us more suspicious of the real objects and results of this review Clause.
8.15 p.m.
We were then told—and it was in order to allay suspicions of that kind that we were informed about this—that the review would be conducted on purely educational grounds. The Parliamentary Secretary was most emphatic about that. I urge him to consider what those remarks mean. Will he be able to give us an example of arguments for a change which might be considered, but which are not permissible, under that formula and arguments which are permissible under it?
Up till now, the general argument for handing anything over to the boroughs has been that one wanted to make them live, vigorous, virile and powerful bodies and that that would reinforce local government. Whatever may be said about that argument, it

cannot, without some extraordinary stretching of words, be called an educational one. It is, if anything, a political or social argument. Presumably, therefore, it will not be open to the Government, if they fulfil the pledge given that this review is to be on purely educational grounds, to start by saying, "We want to give them more say because that would be healthy for the boroughs."
Or if it is the argument, as the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) described, that he did not like the way in which school managers and governors were appointed by the L.C.C., would it be a legitimate argument to say, "If you break the service up to the twelve boroughs, school managers and governors might be appointed in a different way? ". Is that an educational argument?
I am not at all sure that the parents, teachers and children would think so. On the other hand, let us consider something that would undoubtedly be an educational argument. One purpose of education, though only one, is to help children to develop their minds and to secure academic successes. That is not a complete definition of education, but that is one purpose of education. Presumably, therefore, it would be reasonable, when conducting the review, to ask oneself, "If we break our education up among the boroughs are we likely to get schools which will result in more academic successes than if we keep the I.L.E.A. intact?". That is an example of a purely educational argument.
Alternatively, one might ask, "Will there be better provision for certain groups of handicapped children if we break education up among the boroughs?". Granted that those are purely educational grounds, is anyone going to suggest that one will be in a position to give, in less than five years, an answer to those questions worth anything at all? One will not have had a single generation of children through the schools in less than five years.
Suppose anyone were to say in 1970, "It is clear from the academic successes of the schools that the I.L.E.A. is doing either better or worse than the old L.C.C." or "It is clear that the I.L.E.A. is not doing as well or better than the boroughs could be expected to do." Anyone who tried to advance that kind of argument with facts and figures about


the educational attainments of the children would be told that it was far too soon to advance such an argument. Whatever the I. L.E.A. does must be determined, to begin with, by what it inherits from the L.C.C., with the great virtues of that system and such defects as it may possess. To get a serious judgment on educational grounds we would have to wait at least ten years before we could conduct the review to any purpose. If we have to wait that length of time, there is not the slightest need for this review Clause in this Measure. If we mean a genuine educational review, the proper way to conduct that would be for the Minister, after the lapse of some period substantially longer than five years—after, perhaps, a lapse of ten years— to conduct a proper inquiry, as he can in his Department, and if, as a result of that inquiry, it appeared that any changes would be for the better, we could introduce a Statute for that purpose. The Government will not really pretend that they will not be introducing any Statutes about London Government for the next twelve years—if they do, I can assure them that they are very much mistaken.
Instead of doing that, the Government have deliberately prejudiced the issue by subjecting the I.L.E.A. to uncertainty from the start and, in particular, by using in their first draft, until as a result of pressure from us they altered it, wording to suggest to the layman that their intention was fragmentation and that the review was merely a decent screen to that intention. I do not believe that, on educational or any other grounds, there is any case for the review. There is a very considerable case against it on the grounds of the uncertainty it imposes on the whole service and the stupidity of this continuous playing with an idea that, time and time again, even its fondest advocates have found unworkable.
We therefore thought it right on Report to put down this Amendment, partly because of the importance of the issue and partly to give another opportunity to certain hon. Members, supporters of the Government, who did not seem to be quite aware of what was involved in the Clause. The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), for example, told us in all good faith in the Committee that it was not possible under the Bill as it stood to fragment the service among the boroughs. We had to point out to

him that this was just not so. It is perfectly possible to do that under the Bill. Nevertheless, there was the hon. Member for Battersea, South, in all his innocence and zeal, vigorously defending the Clause but totally unaware of what it contained. We have thought it proper to give him another opportunity to consider the matter.
Then there was the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr), who at one stage assured us that further education, at any rate, would not be affected by the review, or broken up to the boroughs. He was, of course, quite wrong. It is the whole function of the I.L.E.A., from the infants school to every provision it makes for young adults, but he was evidently listening to the argument—and, I think, participating in founder a misapprehension of what was involved.
Some hon. Members opposite said that they would like to vote against the review Clause but did not like to vote for what we then proposed to put in its place. We had proposed in Committee to take out the review Clause and put in certain Clauses dealing with minor administrative matters with which the Government found some fault—and they may have been right. In order to remove any difficulty from hon. Gentlemen opposite there, we have put down an Amendment in the simplest possible form; simply proposing to take out subsections (6) and (7).
Here, therefore, is a perfectly simple issue, and anyone like the hon. Member for Barons Court, or other hon. Members opposite, who have stated explicitly that they are opposed to the review Clause, now have an opportunity to vote against it without the fear that they are voting for anything other than the straight issue of whether or not the review Clause shall be in the Bill.
There is also the case of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) who, according to the Eltham and Kentish Times, said that he had been instrumental in getting the review Clause written into the Bill, instead of having a change at once, so that he could not vote against the proposal even if he wanted to. It was news to most of us that the review Clause was the invention of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West—we had credited the Government with a little more inventive genius than that. There


are, therefore, plenty of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I must say that I expected to see more of them here—who would, presumably, be interested in this debate, and glad to take the opportunity of making clear their views on the review Clause.
We regard this as a matter of very great seriousness; that it is so regarded, not only by us as a party but by parents and teachers, must now be overwhelmingly clear to the Government. I ask the Government what they feel they gain by keeping this Clause in the Bill. They certainly gain nothing in the way of good administration, no help to education, and no help to their own credit.

Mr. Weitzman: My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has referred to the views of certain hon. Members on the other side who did not believe that this Clause meant fragmentation. The Minister himself, in answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put to him, said that I ought to read the Bill carefully, that I was ignorant in the matter because, clearly, the Clause did not lead to fragmentation. My hon. Friend has given him the answer.
My hon. Friend recounted the various steps adopted by the Government in finally deciding to insert this subsection in the Bill—how they abandoned one idea after another. Subsection (6) as it stands recognises that the work of the London County Council as an education authority is something to be admired, and something that should not be disturbed. It recognises that by the fact that it preserves the work of the London County Council in a body called the Inner London Education Area. Having recognised that, and having recognised that the work should go on in that way, why should they then disturb it by putting the threat they do in the Bill?
When this matter was raised in Committee—and, I think, on Second Reading—the Minister was asked whether this review must inevitably take place and whether, as a result of the review, changes would be made. I believe that the answer we received was that it did not follow that changes would be made inevitably, but the words of the Clause say the contrary. As I have already said in speeches I have made on this subject, we should read these words in

the ordinary way that we read any English sentence and see what they mean. I repeat the words for that reason.
They are:
… a review of the administration of education in the Inner London Education Area for the purpose of determining to what extent, in what part or parts of that Area, and subject to what conditions, if any,"—
Clearly, "if any", as an ordinary matter of English, refers to the conditions:
all or any of the functions of the local education authority relating to education should be transferred to …
Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the Government are saying in the Clause, "We allow the education authority to be the Inner London Education Authority, but there will be a review which will take place in order that a certain change will be made. We do not say to what extent that change will be made but certainly a change of some kind will be made."

8.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): The hon. and learned Member has put forward this argument before. My right hon. Friend made it clear on Second Reading that "if any" refers to the whole of that previous sentence and that the Clause is not drafted in such a way as to bind the Government to make any changes at all. But because the hon. and learned Member has doubts, which it seems are shared by other hon. Members opposite, we have tabled Amendments, which presumably will be taken immediately after this Amendment, which will meet the point the hon. and learned Member is making.

Mr. Weitzman: I am glad that Amendments are being tabled to remove any doubt on this point, but this does not remove the force of my argument that in this subsection the Government have set out a threat to the Inner London Education Authority and have made it clear to teachers, parents and the general public that the probability is, to put it no higher, that a change will be made.
I do not understand the Government's attitude on this matter. They recognise that the work of the London County Council as an education authority ought to go on and should be preserved in this


body which is to be called the Inner London Education Authority. Why, therefore, put a threat of this kind in the Bill? The seriousness of it is seen in the fact—as the Minister well knows—that by reason of this provision there have been considerable protests from many teachers and parents. They are up in arms about it.
They are not up in arms about some idle threat. They make the forceful argument that if the Government set up the Inner London Education Authority and they want it to do responsible work, to say, "We will create it, but we will follow that up in a year, or two or three years, with a review which may change it extensively" is to set up a body which will be living under a threat. How do the Government expect that body to work satisfactorily in such conditions?
Why was it necessary to put a provision of this kind in the Bill? If it were thought that the Inner London Education Authority would not work successfully, and if it were shown during the years that followed its establishment that in formation, organisation and work there was something wrong with it. Parliament would have the opportunity of dealing with it. It would be quite easy to bring in legislation to have a review and make some alteration, but why write that into the Bill?
When I raised this matter in Committee the reply was, "You know how long it takes for legislation to be enacted and to carry out these steps. We would prefer to have the provision in the Bill." Why? Surely it would be the simplest thing in the world to establish whether the new body was working correctly, and if it were not the Government would have a case.
It would be possible for the Government to come to the House and say, "We have created this body. It is not working properly. Something is wrong. It should be altered in certain ways." Without the necessity for the sanction contained in an Act of Parliament, the Minister could hold a review, collect his facts and present them to the House. We could have a debate and, as a result, a Bill could be brought in. Above all, we could have something which the Government fear—an opportunity of debate in the House of Commons on every detail in regard to any proposed change, which we could not have in the way that the Bill is drafted.
What are the Government afraid of? Why should they take the step they do? I suggest that they are wrong, as they are wrong in many other matters in regard to this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said something about the obstinacy of the Home Secretary and the Minister rose to say that that was not up to the high standard which my hon. Friend usually adopts. If speaking the truth and setting out the facts is not up to my hon. Friend's high standard, I hope that he will continue to do that.
This is a question of obstinacy by the Government. They are clinging to something at the last moment to try to preserve the stand they have taken. There is no case for inserting the right to hold a review as is contained in the subsection. It will result only in uncertainty and in the threat to which I have referred. It arouses opposition and will affect the work of the Inner London Education Authority, which should be created to continue the work instead of living under a threat. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment and recognise the justice of it.

Mr. Percy Holman: Unfortunately, I was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I have some little right to express an opinion on this matter as I have been connected with London education in one way or another for twenty-six years and my wife has been a member of the education committee for twenty-two years.
I have not come across a single educationist in London who supports the idea of any type of fragmentation of the London education service. I think that I can say that the teachers of London were more indignant over the threat to education as they see it, either in the earlier proposals or in the threat to consider the whole matter within the next five years, than they are even over the present salary position. The biggest indoor meeting which I have had since the war, of parents and teachers in Hackney Town Hall, was a unanimous, indignant meeting. In various parts of London, parents and teachers have met together and expressed their indignation in no uncertain manner.
I believe that from the outset the Ministry of Education disliked one proposal after another which came forward because it praised the London education service in its evidence before the Royal Commission, and the Royal Commission, which had no experience of this rather unique system, was like a set of purely academic people trying to fit it into something into which it was not fittable or was fittable only by practically destroying it and trying to recreate it.
In the area where I live, at West Wimbledon, a Surrey local by-election is pending. The election addresses of two-thirds of the Conservative candidates quote the Lord Bishop of London and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in their criticism of the Government's proposals as they affect the County of Surrey. It is interesting to get that sort of criticism in the outer London area as well and that even Conservative candidates cannot support the propositions which the Government have put forward.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in saying that the present Minister's predecessor was prejudiced. My wife watched him for years when he was leader of the opposition on the London County Council. He was rather ineffective. It is not a place where old Etonians and people like that shine particularly. I sometimes thing that old Girtonians do so, as there are several of them on the L.C.C. Education Committee.
The basic point is that London education must be treated separately from other ministerial considerations. It is unique. As chairman of the special schools subcommittee, my wife talks to me about her activities week by week. The L.C.C. gives a wide range of differential education that is not equalled, according to the needs of all the different children in London. It cannot be equalled because of the number of varied types of school children in London.
In an Adjournment debate a week last Friday we heard about autistic children. The Conservative Member who raised the subject became aware, I think, of that word eight or nine weeks ago, and it is extremely interesting to note that on the very day that he heard of it my wife was telling the L.C.C. Education

Committee about the first experiment with this type of child in Holborn.
The group of children concerned is extremely small in number and requires highly specialised attention. There is another little group in Bethnal Green. A child is sent every day from Croydon because the attention required is so specialised. That is the sort of thing that special education can do in London. There are 26 boarding schools in such places as Margate, Hayling Island and St. Leonards, which cater for special needs.
This is something that can be done in a large area. What is to happen to that high degree of specialisation? What is to happen to the 50,000 children who pass over from one borough to another? If these boroughs become fragmented, they will surely try to give a preference to their own children first. That is a constant temptation which arises out of parochialism.
For goodness' sake, let the teachers be heard by the Government. I have never yet come across a London teacher, whatever his political views, who has not said, "leave London education alone." It is as good as any in the country, and in certain respects it is better than many. We should not leave it under any threat such as this Clause does. It will damage recruitment, It will leave the teachers more dissatisfied than they are at present, and that is bad enough already in many respects. I plead with the Minister of Education to make a last minute effort with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to get this provision deleted and thus re-establish confidence among the teachers.
If there is any breakdown in London education, it will be because of its tendency to come more under the control of bureaucracy, because the 40 members, plus the additional one from each local area, will have to carry the whole burden. The inner London area will surely be allowed to have some members who will deal with town planning, roads, and so on, and all those members will be wanted to serve on the education committee because 10 or 12 of them will be needed to serve as chairmen and vice-chairmen of the various committees and sub-committees. That will account for one-third of their day working time in the course of a week. How many


borough councils will provide people who can give much time in the day? Many of them are willing to serve on the basis of evening work only. We may have a few retired people who, at the best, may not have had a great deal of experience in education. That committee will be the only part of the organisation which will be liable to break down under the scheme. Perhaps that could be looked at again in five years, but, please, nothing else in London education.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: It is interesting to look back a little into history. It is no secret that the Ministry of Education itself was strongly opposed to breaking up the system of education in London. It made perfectly clear before the Royal Commission that it regarded the system of education in London as being a good one, offering criticism of the Middlesex system as opposed to the London system, criticism which I am very much prepared to accept. We begin with that. It has been because of the attitude of the Ministry of Education more than anything else that the attempt is not now made to break up London's education. One can say that it is as much due to opposition from the Ministry as to opposition from the people of London that the education system of inner London is to be left intact.
Looking at the matter from a sensible point of view, what is the magic of a review in five years? What is the point of five years? We shall not see a complete generation go through the schools in five years. There will be no means of estimating what is the effect on education itself. In any case, we know already what the system of education provides in London. There is very little criticism of it coming either from people or from Government Departments.
Has this review period been put in not with any real intent but just as a sop to the boroughs, for instance, who are perturbed because they had reason to believe that they were to have some education powers and now find that they are to have none? Is that the basis of it? I have a shrewd suspicion that it is, and I have a shrewd suspicion also that the Ministry of Education, quite apart from any other

Ministries, has no intention of breaking up the system of education in Central London.
If there is any merit in the five-year review, why not have a five-year review in those areas where the education system is to be broken up? If there is some magic in a five-year review, why not look to see whether the outer areas are doing the job as well as it might have been done had education there remained within the central system, particularly further education in regard to which the Minister stands on very shifting ground?
We who have anything to do with education know these things. We know that the centralised system of education has shown that it gives better results. It has offered more flexibility in the education of our children. It has offered greater advantages to teachers for promotion, for interchange between one type of school and another, and so forth. It has offered a more economic system of administration. It has had all the advantages which one looks for in an education system. Indeed, it has had the advantages prescribed in the 1944 Act, which laid down that a reasonable basis for education called for the creation of larger units in order to give the necessary flexibility and efficiency which a modern system required.
The Government dare not put the clock back in London. They dare put the clock back in the other areas, but they make no provision there for looking at the system again. We can make terrible mistakes in outer London, but there is no possibility of seeing whether we have the right system there. In the central area, on the other hand, we can break the system up in five years. There can be no other object in looking at it, if we are to review the situation in five years and see whether the time is then convenient to make a change or whether the conditions which prevail now prevail then.
The Minister has authority to make his investigations now. He can review any education authority and investigate the way it is doing its work at any time he likes. He need not wait five years for it. He can say to any education authority at any time, "I am paying a good deal of the money towards this. I am not satisfied with the way in which you are running your service." He has


the power under the Act to look at what is happening in any education area, so why does he want special provisions? We have had no answer yet from anybody why it is necessary to have a special review at the end of five years.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I suggest to my hon. Friend one possible reason. I follow what he has been saying about the Minister having power to review education anywhere at any time, if he thinks it is convenient to do so, without any special statutory power. What is peculiar about this Clause, unless I have misread it altogether, is that it makes it mandatory on the Minister to make the review, but it is not mandatory on him to make a review anywhere else. Why should he seek powers to compel himself by Statute to make a review, if he is arguing at the same time that it is a normal routine affair without any sinister intention at the end of it?

Mr. Pargiter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has said, perhaps more cogently than I could have done, the sort of things that I have been trying to say.
In any case, it creates for a period of five years uncertainty with regard to the future of education in central London. It will have done a good deal of harm in the outer London areas, but that apparently does not worry the Minister at all. The farthest that the Royal Commission was prepared to go—the Government quote the Royal Commission when it suits them—in regard to some education areas at any rate, was that primary education could actually be hived off from secondary and further education. I shall be careful not to trespass on the question of the outer London areas and to confine myself to central London, but it is almost impossible to look at the one without the other. Why do the Government want to do one thing in one area and not in another?
Why do they want a mandatory review in respect of one area and require no authority at all to look at a larger area involving in total a larger population than that of Central London to make quite sure that they have done the right thing? They say, "We can look at this at any time and may possibly look into this in far less than five

years". If they do so, I should be very glad because a lot of evidence will be forthcoming of the difficulties arising in the outer London area which will not be evident in the central London area because the education system there is to continue. I express the hope that if we have an inelastic and inflexible Government set on an educational course irrespective of the wishes of the people, or even of the well being of the service, in a blind political cause, we can only hope that they will not be in power very much longer.

Mr. E. Partridge: I did not propose to intervene in this part of the debate, but as I understand my name has been mentioned when I was absent from the Chamber I thought it wise to get the record right. It has been said that in the proceedings upstairs I was in favour of the review but did not join the Opposition in voting against the Government. As is usually the case with the Opposition, they are wholly wrong. Two of my hon. Friends spoke before me in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) said:
If we are to have the review period—and I do not like it—can we have written into the Bill mandatory provision that the review will be on educational grounds only …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February, 1963; c. 493.]
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alain Glyn) said:
My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court referred to planning for the future, and it should be clearly established that the review will be purely on educational grounds."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February, 1963; c. 497.]
I took my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court to task for leaving out of account one essential point, and that was that the London education authority, as proposed, had no parallel anywhere. I said:
But this body which we are setting up is purely experimental and obviously there should be a review later to find out whether it is fulfilling all the functions that there should be in education. Here I cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn). This is not only a matter of education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February, 1963; c. 497–8.]
How it can be said that I was against the review I cannot understand.

Mr. M, Stewart: The horn. Gentleman is misinformed. No one has suggested that he was against the review. I made it perfectly clear in my speech that he was for the review. My criticism of his speech in Committee was that, although he was for the review, he did not know what the result of it would be because he was unaware that it might result in the fragmentation of education. He will find the reference to that in c. 499 of the report of our proceedings in Committee on 28th February. No one has suggested that the hon. Gentleman was not solidly behind the Government. He was as wrong-headed then as he always is; I give him that assurance.

Mr. Partridge: I feel that I have a valid point, because, whenever the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) gets personal and casts aspersions on my hon. Friends, I know that we have found a chink in his armour and that he feels he is beaten and therefore takes refuge in that argument.
May I deal with a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman)? He kept on addressing a rhetorical question to the Government: what are the Government afraid of? I should like to ask: what are hon. Members opposite afraid of? If this procedure will work out so perfectly, why are they afraid of having it considered again in order to see whether it can be improved?
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why should not we wait until it has broken down and then come to the House with legislation in respect of it? The hon. and learned Gentleman must be very naive if he thinks that it is as easy as that. If he confers with his right hon. Friend the Chief Opposition Whip, he will find that it is the most difficult thing in the world to bring forward amending legislation which deals with only one comparatively small point. That has been the situation in this House for many years, and it is not likely to alter in the near future.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my asking what the Government were afraid of. Has not he heard the phrase, "Those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad"?

Mr. Partridge: I have heard that, and I have also heard that the price of coal is going up, but what it has to do with this I really do not know.
9.0 p.m.
However, I think I have said enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to hear plain speaking. They like people to circumlocute. I run up the Jolly Roger, and I sail under the flag if I want to, and I am for the review. I believe there is likely to prove a defect inasmuch as this authority deals with education only, and it may well be that in the review we shall find something which is a defect, which can be remedied, and if there is, I do not see any reason at all why it should not be. One certain thing I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise is this, that we on this side of the House are just as jealous about the education of our children as they are. In fact, more so.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) has made a useful contribution to this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Has he?"]—but hon. Members should wait for the qualification which I put in—because he has revealed the political motives which lie behind the Government's intention. His speech was useful because it revealed that there is not a single educational argument which the Government can bring forward; or if there are any he certainly had not heard of them because he did not bring them forward.

Mr. Partridge: Is the hon. Gentleman asking me to repeat the whole speech I made in Standing Committee upstairs? Because I will with pleasure.

Mr. Thomas: I must say that the longer the hon. Gentleman went on the more he was helping the Opposition. We are very grateful to him. I am sure he must put the fear of the Lord into those who sit on the Government Front Bench—especially at the thought that he should repeat the speech which he made in Standing Committee upstairs.
The Minister of Education is in hot water these days with teachers and education authorities all over the land.

Mr. Partridge: Not with the British public.

Mr. Thomas: He seems to have a special delight in going against the considered judgment of all the people who do the real work of education. He knows best!

Mr. Skeffington: The gentleman in Whitehall.

Mr. Thomas: The Minister of Education last week was buffeted, and I see he is threatened with some more buffeting. I take no joy in this. I had high hopes that the Minister of Education would listen to the people who are doing the job. Now the plain truth is, and the Minister knows it, that everyone who is engaged in the work of education in London resents this proposal for a review after five years. The teachers feel insecure, the local authorities know that their planning arrangements just cannot be made with any confidence. A period of five years for a local education authority is but the passing of a day so far as their long distance work is concerned.
The Minister, I believe, cannot have any influence in the Government. Either the Minister of Education has lent his influence to this review Clause going in, in which case he is once again putting himself in hostility with all the teachers' organisations and all education authorities, or he was opposed to this but had not sufficient weight to carry the day on an educational issue.
I intervene in this debate because I know from first hand the depth of feeling of the London teachers on this question. I am in touch with them because I am a member of the National Union of Teachers, which is very powerfully represented in the London area.
I ask the Minister, "Why do you not unbend a little? Why do you not realise that you can be wrong?" We believe that he is wrong and that he is provoking the maximum suspicion about this review with the minimum of advantage to the Government. I cannot see what the Government will gain other than political spite against the L.C.C. itself or against the L.C.C. Education Committee, which they would like to have demolished long ago—although I do not think that the Ministry itself wanted that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why should not the Minister be demolished instead?

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will be demolished. We must only be patient. Retribution is on the way to him.
The right hon. Gentleman has a last-minute chance now to help education by withdrawing this review Clause, accepting our Amendment and giving the go-ahead to those who will be responsible for the I.L.E.A. and who will then feel that they can plan ahead in the confident assurance that the Government will support them.

Mr. Chataway: Like the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and others, I will concentrate largely on the review as it affects the education service. We are also considering an Amendment to Clause 34, which provides for a similar review for the Youth Employment Service. The two reviews should be taken together. If we are to have a review of the I.L.E.A. it is sensible to have one of the Youth Employment Service at the same time. If alterations are to be made to education in London, it will be necessary to make alterations to the Youth Employment Service. I hope, therefore, that it will be agreed that these two reviews stand or fall together.
A number of hon. Members have given a history of the proposals that have been put forward for the organisation of education in inner London. There was some conflict in this respect between the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who accused the Government of being inelastic and inflexible, and the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who charged us with abandoning one idea after the other.

Mr. Pargiter: That is part of the inflexibility—having no mind at all.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman may be able to justify that to himself, but, since there appears to be a little conflict, I remind the House that the Government from the start took the view that the proposal of the Royal Commission for education in the inner London area would not be a good one. The reasons for this lay in the arguments from the traffic and the historical points of view. They are now familiar to hon. Members and I will not go into them at length.
Minor authorities in the present L.C.C. areas have no experience of education


administration. Education has been built in to the present L.C.C. area as one service and there is much greater interchange between operations in the present L.C.C. area than is the case in the rest of Greater London. That is a result of a more integrated traffic system.
The Government's initial proposal in the White Paper was that the central area—the more integrated area—should form the an area of about 2 million people, and that the remaining million people of the present L.C.C. area should be organised from the boroughs. This proposal was put forward in the first White Paper, the object of which was to promote discussion. I do not believe that the Government were inflexible then. Account was taken of the representations made and, as the House will know, the proposal in the Bill is that the L.C.C. area, with the exception of a small part of Woolwich which lies north of the river, should be held together in the Inner London Education Authority. But to hold the L.C.C. education service together in this way it was necessary to constitute a novel type of authority. There is no parallel for the I.L.E.A. anywhere else in the country. Its constitution consists partly of representatives from the G.L.C. and partly of representatives from the borough councils.
It is gratifying to the Government to know that there have been so few criticisms of this authority. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) suggested, however, that it might not be rightly constituted. In those circumstances he, at least, should appreciate the need for a review.

Mr. Holman: Can the Minister give us a guarantee that any review will affect only the upper administrative level represented by the elected body?

Mr. Chataway: I am going on to deal with a number of other matters. The hon. Member will see that a pledge of that kind would not be appropriate.

Mr. M. Stewart: I want to get this point clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) criticised the I.L.E.A. on the ground that it might not be rightly constituted, and the Parliamentary Secretary took up that point as an argument for review. Can he show me where there is power for

the Minister, in subsection (6) or (7), to make an order altering the constitution of the I.L.E.A.? He can reduce its functions to nothing, or hand over bits of its property, but I cannot see that he has any power to alter its constitution. If there is anything wrong with its constitution the review Clause does not seem to be the answer.

Mr. Chataway: It is clear that under the review Clause the entire education service—at present under the London County Council, but later to be administered by the I.L.E.A.—could be transferred in toto to a newly constituted body.

Mr. Lubbock: Or the appropriate council.

Mr. Chataway: Or the appropriate council. If it were found that the I.L.E.A. was not functioning properly it would be possible to make other arrangements.
I now pass to the question of powers. The hon. Member for Fulham made a good deal of a point introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about school managers. As I recollect it, it was not my hon. Friend's argument that the appointment of school managers could constitute an argument for breaking up the L.C.C. education service. This was an argument for delegating some of the I.L.E.A. to the boroughs.
I suggest to the House that we shall have in the Inner London area minor authorities which will be larger than the minor authorities elsewhere and they will have a wider range of powers than minor authorities elsewhere. These minor authorities—minor only in the education respect—the Greater London boroughs, will have some education functions, just a few, from the start just as the metropolitan boroughs at present have education functions, for example, the appointment of managers of primary schools.
9.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend's point, and certainly the point I tried to make in Committee, was that it may well seem when the review is carried out that it would be sensible to give the London boroughs greater responsibility for the appointment of managers. It may be that it will seem sensible when the review takes place for there to be some adjustment


of powers of this kind. I do not believe that the Minister of the day will institute in the inner London area any system which is like the system which operates at present in Middlesex. I cannot think that he would introduce a system of divisional executives or excepted districts. The objections to such a system have been brought out both by the Royal Commission and the Government.
Some hon. Members opposite have asked why we should make this a statutory review. The answer has been given that if minor amendments prove to be necessary it will be helpful to have in this Bill provision whereby the Minister can make those amendments without introducing fresh legislation in the House of Commons. I believe that it would be the experience of hon. Members in most parts of the House that amendments to the law which are needed, perhaps of a minor kind, are sometimes held up simply because there is not time to introduce them into the House.
The main argument against the review, and I accept that it has some force, is that it will cause anxiety and some uncertainty. This, of course, is a factor which has to be taken into account. I should not wish to dismiss all the arguments which have been advanced on that score. I do, however, suggest that the degree of uncertainty likely has been very seriously exaggerated. I had occasion in Committee upstairs to point to some of the serious misconceptions which have been spread about the contents of the Bill by apparently reputable bodies. I quoted from a pamphlet which had been printed by an organisation called the "North London Parent-Teachers Association", which, I think the whole Committee agreed, bore no resemblance whatever to the proposals in the Bill, or any proposals which have been advanced.
It is my impression that in the present L.C.C. area as people have come to understand more fully what is proposed, so there has been far less objection to this review Clause. Of course, it can still be argued that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Government have no amendments in mind. The Government have no intention of making any changes. That is not our present intention. If it

were, clearly we would have incorporated those changes in this Bill. Everyone concerned with the present L.C.C. service can well reflect that arguments from history and from transport have led the Government on this occasion to believe it right to hold the L.C.C. area together until 1970.
I suggest, therefore, that the degree of uncertainty is small—indeed, it is less than the degree of uncertainty from which, it can be argued, the L.C.C. has suffered ever since the war, because it has been increasingly clear since the war that there would have to be a thorough review of London Government, and since the publication of the Royal Commission Report the L.C.C. staff could well have felt a serious degree of uncertainty. But in this review provision there will certainly not be that cause for anxiety.
My right hon. Friend gave two assurances on Second Reading. I repeated them in Committee upstairs, and I believe that they are important. He said, first, that this review would be made on educational grounds. The hon. Member for Fulham asked which sort of arguments would qualify under this description and which would not. He quoted one argument which seemed to be about the creation of London boroughs as healthy units of local government which it seemed to me clearly would not qualify as an argument related solely to education.
The truth of the matter is that when there is local government reform the Minister responsible for no one service can say that only that service will be considered in arriving at the final structure. Clearly, when there is a general local government reform the needs of every service have to be considered, and on many occasions a compromise has to be reached. In this instance, it will be only the interests of the inner London education service which will be at issue, and the interests of the education service will be the paramount consideration when the review takes place.
The second assurance which my right hon. Friend gave was that there would be no change if no change were found to be necessary. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has had anxieties about the drafting of the Clause. As I said earlier. I believe


that those anxieties have been shared by others. My right hon. Friend has consequently authorised the tabling of an Amendment which we shall next discuss and which makes it absolutely clear that there will be no change if no change is felt to be necessary.
To summarise, I accept that not all the arguments are on one side in this issue. I believe, however, that we have here a novel authority, that although we believe it to be right and although the Government believe that we have reached the right solution this time, it is only sensible to make provision for a review, and a review in the not-too-distant future. I therefore hope that the House agrees that, on balance, this is the right decision and that, in consequence, it will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the I.L.E.A. will have security until 1970. This merely shows how much he missed the whole point of our argument. In fact the I.L.E.A. will not have security until after 1970. It is as simple as that. It is the doubtful period from now until 1970 under which we are asking this new authority to work. There are very grave doubts about what will happen in 1970.
I tell the Minister frankly that he has not allayed the fears on this side of the House. As his speech unfolded we realised that here was the reason why so many people, not only on this side of the House but outside, in London, are so alarmed at the Government's proposals. He tells a story of the Royal Commission issuing a report which the Government decided not to accept in principle as regards Landon education. He then tells a story of a plan issued by the Government in which 2½ million of London's population would be dealt with by an inner authority. Over 1 million of the population would be dealt with by the London boroughs. Then he tells a story of the Government making another change, when they decided to keep the L.C.C. area together. This is what the hon. Gentleman tells us. Can he wonder that people outside wonder what the Government intend and have grave doubts about the Government's intentions? I can give him this warning, that in the very near future there will not be a Tory Government to worry about. This is the real answer.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) has stayed in his place. He said that the protests of teachers and parents were politically inspired. He said that upstairs in Standing Committee. This has caused grave resentment among many decent people. It can be said faithfully that the vast majority of the meetings which were held were held without any political representation. The hon. Gentleman is so ignorant of political matters that he believes that the London Schoolmasters' Association is a Socialist body. This is an astonishing view. I am sure that the schoolmasters are almost as astounded as we are.
The truth is that so much concern and alarm has been caused about these proposals because of the Government's previous attitude. This concern has been caused particularly among voluntary schools. Those concerned are still very unhappy about this. I am very glad that the Minister of Education has come into the debate, at least to listen. We discussed this problem in Committee. The complaint is that, even with the Inner London Authority, there will still be something like 20 outside authorities to negotiate with instead of five county authorities. If, in 1970, all education were handed over to the Greater London boroughs, these people would be asked to negotiate with 32 authorities.
I cannot tell the House what these people think about it. They are absolutely shocked at the thought of it. All these people who have been associated with education down the years are alarmed, but for no political reasons, for no political party reasons at all. They are alarmed because they happen to love education and it means a great deal to them. They think that to have all these separate bodies is criminal.
The tragedy is that the boroughs have never asked for education. Whatever boroughs there may be that have wanted health services, welfare services and all the other services we have often heard about from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I know of no London borough that has ever asked for education. It is criminal to impose upon people who have not asked for something the task of doing something they do not want to do. That is the long-term view of what the Government eventually at the end of the day have


decided that they have in mind. They are going to do it with the outer London boroughs.
Why has this review area to be mandatory in the Bill? This point has been made already, and I re-emphasise it. Why do we have to write into the Bill that there will be a review at any particular time? The Minister has such powers that, if he was not happy with education in any area, he could take action. If the Bill went through without this provision, if the Inner London Education Authority were set up, and if the Tory Government after, say, three years—assuming that we have a Tory Government in power then, which is most unlikely—were dissatisfied with the I.L.E.A., will anyone care to tell me that the Government would wait until 1970 before doing anything about it? They would come to the House immediately.
Everybody knows that if the Government of the day want legislation they will get it through. Nobody believes all this stuff and nonsense about not possibly bringing in a Bill of this kind because it is so difficult to get through the House. If a Government say that a Bill is urgent, they will rush it through and, as they have done in this Bill, impose a Guillotine from the word "Go" and crash it through. The last thing the Government should think about is not getting the sort of legislation they want. I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary frankly that my hon. Friends and I and people outside are even more alarmed because of some of the remarks he made.
The Youth Employment Service has not really been discussed in this debate. The service, as part of the education service in London, is very creditable. It has now established first-class officers who are doing a great job. Indeed, their services are now needed more than ever before because there is greater unemployment amongst our youngsters. It may interest the Parliamentary Secretary to know that in the last two years there has been a 300 per cent. increase in the diffi-

culty of getting jobs for school-leavers. The services of the youth employment officers are needed now more than ever. The very thought that at some later stage—in the not too distant future—that service might be broken up is regarded by many of us as disastrous.

For these reasons, we shall certainly take this matter to a Division.

Mr. Driberg: If I may add a postscript to this important discussion—in some ways, perhaps, the most important we have had today—one good reason for deleting subsection (6) is its appallingly bad drafting. It is rather saddening and, in a way, surprising that a Minister of Education—any Minister of Education, for the Minister of Education must have been consulted about the drafting of the subsection—should care so little for good, plain English; which, I agree, it is not always easy to achieve in legislation.
In this case, however, the Ministers and their draftsmen have surpassed themselves in turgid unintelligibility. The poor Parliamentary Secretary, though he must be presumed to know the subsection almost by heart, stumbled rather badly over some terribly clumsy wording in lines 7 and 8. Further proof of what I am saying is the fact that the next two Amendments on the Notice Paper are drafting Amendments to this subsection—made necessary, apparently, or so the Government think, because it is drafted so clumsily.
As I hope to be able to show when we reach those Amendments, Mr. Speaker. neither of them is necessary. But the draftsmen and the Ministers were obviously so appalled at their own handiwork that they thought that they had to try to tidy it up. This is just one more small piece of evidence of the fact that this hated Bill has been rushed through in a most ill-considered way.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "to". in line 4, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 148.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[9.32 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goe &amp; Fhm)
Black, Sir Cyril


Altken, W. T.
Berkeley, Humphry
Bossom, Clive


Allason, James
Biffen, John
Bourne-Arton, A.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Biggs-Davison, John
Box, Donald


Balniel, Lord
Bingham, R. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John


Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Barter, John
Bishop, F. P.
Braine, Bernard




Brewis, John
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hendry, Forbes
Partridge, E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Peel, John


Buck, Anthony
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hobson, Sir John
Pitman, Sir James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pott, Percivall


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior, J. M L.


Chichester-Clark, H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Clarke, Brig, Terenee(Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cleaver, Leonard
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool.S.)


Cole, Norman
James, David
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
St. Clair, M.


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Seymour, Leslie


Coulson, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crawley, Aldan
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Smithers, Peter


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig, Sir John


Curran, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. P.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Doughty, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Longbottom, Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, Edward
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin
Turner, Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson.Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Forrest, George
Maginnis, John E.
Walder, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marshall, Douglas
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Gammans, Lady
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wise, A. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woollam, John


Harris, Reader (Heaton)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Batsford and Mr. Rees.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Diamond, John


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Callaghan, James
Dodds, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Chapman, Donald
Donnelly, Desmond


Beaney, Alan
Cliffe, Michael
Driberg, Tom


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, Percy
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bence, Cyril
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Robert (Bliston)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Benson, Sir George
Crosland, Anthony
Finch, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fitch, Alan


Boardman, H.
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Eric


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Deer, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry




Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, Frank
Short, Edward


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie
Small, William


Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles
Snow, Julian


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegls)
Mason, Roy
Sorensen, R. W.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hooson, H. E.
Mitchison, G. R,
Stones, William


Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mulley, Frederick
Taverne, D.


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Owen, Will
Thornton, Ernest


Jeger, George
Padley, W. E.
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wade, Donald


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Elwyn (west Ham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Whitlock, William


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


King, Dr. Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Redhead, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rhodes, H.



Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lubbock, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


MacColl, dames
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Grey.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, in page 43, line 4, after "determining", to insert "whether, and if so".

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that it would be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in line 5, leave out "conditions, if any" and insert "if any, conditions".

Mr. Chataway: The two Amendments give effect to the undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). They make it abundantly clear that no changes will be made in the administration of education in the Inner London Education Area if from the review it is clear that no changes are needed. They are, therefore, no more than drafting Amendments. I need not emphasise again that it was never the Government's intention that there should be changes made whatever the outcome of the review. The purpose of the Amendments, therefore, is simply to clarify the Clause.

Mr. Driberg: It originally seemed to me that the second at least of these two Amendments was unnecessary, because I naturally supposed that the words "if any" referred only to "conditions": that is the only sense in which anybody, even half-educated, could conceivably understand them. But my hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), has been good enough to draw my attention to the proceedings in Standing Committee, as reported in column 519 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This point and the point made in the first Amendment were raised by my hon. and learned Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary then said this extraordinary thing, and I hope that hon. Members will allow what he said to sink in when they look at the wording of the subsection:
All I can tell him is that all the advice that we have is that the words 'if any' in line 18"—
as it then was—
refer to the preceding three lines.
9.45 p.m.
I am sorry to say it, but this is absolutely illiterate. I am not surprised that HANSARD goes on to say:
MR. WEITZMAN indicated dissent.
on which the Parliamentary Secretary said:
That may be the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion but in the view of the Government there is no shadow of doubt upon it and, therefore, there is no question of the phraseology of subsection (5) in any way prejudging the review"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 28th February, 1963; c. 519.]


"No shadow of doubt"! The hon. Gentleman was committing the whole of Her Majesty's Government to this terrible solecism—

Mr. Chataway: It may be that I said "three lines". If it was reported as "three lines", I probably did. What I meant to say was the three preceding groups of words and the three "anys" in the previous line.

Mr. Driberg: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "groups of words"?

Mr. Chataway: Three "anys".

Mr. Driberg: When the hon. Gentleman says "groups of words", he means "anys". Never mind: we will stop teasing him now and let him have his Amendments, but please let them be more careful ft future about, their drafting.

Amendment agreed to,

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 5, leave out "conditions, if any" and insert "if any, conditions".—[Mr. Chataway.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 31.—(PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND FURTHER EDUCATION IN GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move in, page 44, line 44, at the end to insert:
Provided that the Minister of Education may direct that any two or more outer London boroughs shall submit to him a joint restatement of the said scheme or schemes of further education so far as relating to those boroughs; and any such joint restatement when so submitted shall be deemed for the purposes of the said section 42 to be a scheme of further education which has been submitted to the Minister of Education under subsection (1) of that section.
This Amendment reminds us that the Clause is concerned not only with primary and secondary schools, but with the whole apparatus of education—indeed, with everything that comes into the purview of an education authority. When, in outer London, the county service for education is broken up, provision must be made both for the development plans for primary and secondary education and for schemes for further education. The provision which is made in the Bill is that each borough is to take the bits of the existing scheme for further education which apply to itself and submit them in the form of a restatement to the Minister; and subject

to the Minister's approval, they are to be deemed to be the scheme of further education for that borough.
The Amendment is a simple one and it should be acceptable, because it is not mandatory. It merely gives the Minister power to do something that he might find it useful to do. He might conclude when he looked at, say, two of the new boroughs which now form part of the County of Middlesex or part of the County of Surrey that the attempt to take the previous scheme of further education and restate it solely in the terms of one borough was difficult administratively.
We suggest, therefore, that the Minister should have power to say to any two or more boroughs, "I do not want you to present me with an individual scheme. I want you to present me with a joint scheme." One of the reasons why that may be so desirable in the case of further education is that the resources, human and material, available for further education are limited. One does not want adjacent boroughs in their schemes of further education trying to make provision which will unnecessarily duplicate effort and waste resources.
There is sometimes a temptation for a borough, if it has a college doing further education work of a competent standard—but only up to a certain standard—to observe that its neighbour has a college doing work of a more advanced standard and to feel as a matter of proper pride that it also should develop work to that standard and not to observe that if both it and its neighbour tried to do that, neither of them might be able to get the staff to do it properly. Problems like this occur all over the country and to deal with them we generally have regional advisory committees on further education. But their powers, of course, are only advisory. Similarly, the Minister has power—indeed, it is his duty—under the 1944 Act when he is considering any education authority's scheme for further education to consider it in the light of the schemes of its neighbours. What we are proposing is merely a sort of improvement on that.
As the Bill now stands, each borough has got to state its own scheme for further education. The scheme then goes to the Minister. Then the Minister, in the exercise of his powers under


the 1944 Act, could say to each one, "You have not properly considered what has been done in your immediate neighbourhood. Take it back and consider it again." What we are suggesting is a procedure that might avoid that repetition of work. The Minister, from his knowledge of the conditions in adjacent boroughs, might well say, "They are more likely to get the thing right and avoid the necessity of having it sent back to them if they are asked in the first instance to prepare a joint scheme, where they can consider together what resources they have got and what is the most economical and sensible use of them."
I do not deny or retract at all from the general criticisms of the educational provisions of this Bill, but I think at this point we have an opportunity, without offending the Government's general beliefs that have inspired this Bill, to avoid some of the possibility of fragmentation and waste of effort which we feel is the danger underlying the whole proposal. This, at least, is a point on which we could be agreed, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I hope the House will have nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. This is nothing more than a restatement of the proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) some years ago, that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), with his experience of local government, which extends over many years, ought to know that since long before the war there have been voluntary arrangements between adjacent boroughs for pooling their resources in respect of all sorts of services. This has happened in connection with sewage disposal, ambulance and fire services, and there is no reason to suppose that in this present day and age there will not be the same sort of close association and co-operation between adjacent boroughs in connection with higher education.
There is a very close and intimate association between adjacent boroughs, and this Amendment turns on the word

"direct" which, in spite of anything that the Parliamentary Secretary may say, puts great power in the hands of the Minister. As I say, I sincerely hope that the House will have nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Chataway: There is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has said, the closest co-operation between boroughs and counties in further education, and there has to be, because no authority, however large, can aim at complete self-sufficiency in the provision of further education. It would be quite wrong for it to do so. My right hon. Friend therefore completely accepts the proposition that the new education authorities in outer London will have to co-operate closely just as other local education authorities do throughout the country.
This proviso in the Amendment would enable my right hon. Friend to direct two or more authorities to submit joint schemes, and I suggest to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that this is unnecessary. As the Bill stands, each of the outer London boroughs is required to submit a revised scheme for further education to my right hon. Friend for his approval, and, under Section 42 (4) of the Education Act, a local authority is required, when it is preparing a scheme, to have regard to any facilities for further education provided by universities, education associations and other bodies and to consult with such bodies and the local education authorities for adjacent areas. Therefore, my right hon. Friend can see to it as a condition for his approval that the schemes of neighbouring education authorities are properly co-ordinated.
Besides this, my right hon. Friend has power under the 1944 Act to establish joint education committees of two or more local education authorities if that seems to be expedient for some purpose. My right hon. Friend therefore has, under the 1944 Act, a power on all fours with the power which the hon. Gentleman suggests here.
I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South that it is undesirable for the Minister of Education to use those powers lightly. In practice, it has been found that co-operation can be secured by less formal arrangements, but I assure the hon. Gentleman


that the power is there under paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Education Act, 1944 and, since my right hon. Friend has that power, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree to with-draw the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: Would it be possible, as the Bill now stands, for two or more boroughs which wished to do so to submit to him a joint restatement? If it would not be, might it not be desirable to consider amending the Bill in another

place at least to enable boroughs which wish to do so to do it?

Mr. Chataway: No. Boroughs which wished to do so would be able to submit a scheme in that form to my right hon. Friend.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 219.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John


Awbery, Sun (Bristol Central)
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegls)
Parkin, B. T.


Barnett, Guy
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Hooson, H. E.
Pries, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Hunter, A. E.
Purvey, Cmdr, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rhodes, H.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bradley, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Collick, Percy
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Snow, Julian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crosland, Anthony
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tam
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Deer, George
Lubbock, Eric
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dodds, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, Archie
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, R. J.
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Oswald, Thomas



Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Padley, W. E.
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bourne-Arton, A.


Aitken, W. T.
Berkeley, Humphry
Box, Donald


Allason, James
Biffen, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bingham, R. M.
Braine, Bernard


Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brewis, John


Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Barter, John
Black, Sir Cyril
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)




Bryan, Paul
Hendry, Forbes
Partridge, E.


Buck, Anthony
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Percival, Ian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hobson, sir John
Pott, Percivall


Cary, Sir Robert
Hocking, Philip N.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Christopher
Hornby, R. P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Francis


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ramsden, James


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees, Hugh


Cleaver, Leonard
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooper, A. E.
James, David
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
St. Clair, M.


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Coulson, Michael
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Seymour, Leslie


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharpies, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Shaw, M.


Crawley, Aidan
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Curran, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smithers, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Kimball, Marcus
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Dance, James
Kirk, Peter
Spearman, Sir Alexander


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Stevens, Geoffrey


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


du Cann, Edward
Lilley, F. J. P.
Temple, John M.


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Elliott,R.W.(Nwctsle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Loveys, Walter H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Forrest, George
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macpherson,Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Wakefield, sir Wavell


Gibson-watt, David
Marshall, Douglas
Walder, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gurden, Harold
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Woollam, John


Hastings, Stephen
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Clause 37.—(APPLICATION OF ENACT MENTS RELATING TO SEWERAGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL.)

Amendments made: In page 53, line 33, leave out from "London" to end of line 34 and insert:

in which subsections (2) and (3) of this section are not for the time being in force".

In page 53, line 43, at end insert:
(4A) Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part I of the said Schedule 9 shall extend outside the parts of the sewerage area of the Greater London Council in which subsections (2) and (3) of this section are in force.
(4B) During any period when the said subsections (2) and (3) are not in force in all parts of the sewerage area of the Greater London Council, references in Schedules 9 and 10 to this Act to that area shall be construed as references to the parts of that area in which those subsections are for the time being in force.

In page 54, line 1. leave out "subsections (2) and (3) of this section" and insert "the said subsections (2) and (3)".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 39.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEWERAGE.)

Amendments made: In page 55, line 15, at end insert:
 except where the context otherwise requires
In page 55, line 30, at end insert:
(1A) Any installation or equipment installed or used for the purpose of treating any overflow of sewage from a sewer caused by an

excess of storm water shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to form part of that sewer and not to be or form part of a sewage disposal works.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 43.—(MODIFICATIONS OF LONDON BUILDING ACTS.)

Amendments made: In page 58, line 15, leave out "or 84 ".

In page 59, line 18, leave out "5 to" and insert "6 and".

In page 59, line 19, after "3", insert "of that Act ".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 45.—(LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, in page 61, line 42, at the end, insert:
(3) In its application to Greater London, section 31 of the National Health Service Act 1946 (which provides for Executive Councils for General Medical and Dental Services and Supplementary Ophthalmic Services) shall have effect as if for any reference to the local health authority area there were substituted a reference to one of the areas provided for in the Schedule (Areas, etc. of Executive Councils for General Medical and Dental Services, Pharmaceutical Services and Supplementary Ophthalmic Services).
Perhaps it will be convenient to take with this Amendment my new Schedule entitled, "AREAS, ETC. OF EXECUTIVE COUNCILS FOR GENERAL MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES AND SUPPLEMENTARY OPHTHALMIC SERVICES":


London Boroughs
Executive Council


1–12
Inner London (formerly London Executive Council).


13–17
To remain part of the present Essex Executive Council with the inclusion of the former Executive Councils for the County Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham, in existence on 31st March 1965.


18–19
To remain part of the Kent Executive Council.


20–24
To remain part of the Surrey Executive Council.


Area which would incorporate also the Executive Council for the area formerly the County Borough of Croydon in existence on 31st March 1965.


25–32
North West London (formerly Middlesex Executive Council).


We have proposed the Amendment because, although I raised the point in Committee, I was dissatisfied with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I therefore thought that the proper thing to do would be at this stage to get the matter clarified so that the House could decide the issues before us.
This Bill affects, in passing, so to speak, the National Health Service Act, 1946, which provided in Part IV and the Fifth Schedule that the organisation of the general medical services, the pharmaceutical services, the dental services and the supplementary ophthalmic services

should be organised by local executive councils which would have the same area as that of each local health authority. This Bill, in altering the areas of the local health authorities, automatically alters the areas in which the family doctor services and the dentists and opticians in an area operate. In my new Schedule, which I understand we can discuss with this Amendment, I designate, instead of 33 executive councils, which would be the corollary of passing the Bill in its present form, just five executive councils more or less covering the areas which are at present covered for these purposes.
Yet this is not the status quo. The Amendment and the Schedule provide the changes which I believe to be necessary, and which I think would be more suited to the reorganisation of Greater London and the new boroughs than what the existing system provides. The main change, if my new Schedule were accepted, would be this, that whereas the London Executive Council and the Middlesex Executive Council would remain the same, Surrey, Essex and Kent Executive Councils would retain those sections which now fall within the purview of Greater London, but at the same time the three county boroughs which, if I may say so, have always seemed to me a little bit anomalous in the situation, would fall into the county areas in which they are geographically placed, so the County Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham would become part of Essex Executive Council and the County Borough of Croydon would become part of Surrey Executive Council.
This does not necessarily provide the ideal situation. I believe there is room for considerable change in this sphere, but in the situation in which we find ourselves with this major, drastic alteration of London Government coming on, this is the least which can be done to preserve the best in medicine, the best in dentistry, the best in pharmaceutical service for the local inhabitants.
This does not cover only the provision of a local executive council, because, as is inherent in the National Health Service Act, the executive councils work through sub-committees or local committees dealing with the specialties concerned, so that in each area of an executive council we have a local medical


committee, consisting of general practitioners, we have a local dental committee, and we have a local pharmaceutical committee, dealing with the technical arrangements which are needed in the day-to-day administration of the National Health Service in the area.
The ramifications of this are quite formidable, and I think that all sections of the local services of the National Health Service dealing directly with the patients are horrified at the idea that perhaps we shall have 33 local medical committees, 33 dental committees, 33 local pharmaceutical committees, apart from the parent 33 executive councils. It is with a view to bringing this into more manageable proportions that I move this Amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Our concern is shared by the doctors. The Minister of Housing and Local Government will recall that he has received quite strong pressure from doctors in the London area about the possible results of the Bill. I quote again from the representations made by the local medical committee in the county of London.
It will be a tragedy for all concerned, and not least for the new boroughs, if this fragmentation results in less efficient health services. Vet the Government appears blind to this danger. We doctors, on the other hand, foresee that our patients will suffer.
That is not the impression of people who are not thoughtful and knowledgeable about the National Health Service but of family doctors who are handling this matter day in and day out and can see the very difficult technical problems which will arise if the Bill goes through in its present form.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put on record for the benefit of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) that this move by the doctors is not politically inspired.

Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry but I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) on that point.
The doctors have also made representations to the Ministry of Health, which proved most sympathetic. I believe that the reply by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicated that at least he was aware of the problem and that the Ministry was seriously considering it. Unfortunately, the doctors did not come away from their interview with the Minister of

Housing and Local Government feeling that he was very helpful. They received the impression that his major preoccupation was the reorganisation of local government and that in his scheme of things the problems of the National Health Service could be sorted out after the Bill had gone through. But it would be a great mistake to take that line.
It is always, of course, difficult to give consideration to all the things that will be affected by a Bill, but in dealing with such a specialised service, and when one sees that opinions are being put forward by people with such a great deal of experience, one should accord the maximum weight and sympathy to them.
In Standing Committee there was considerable discussion on the possibilities of having teams of health workers and family doctors, but each of these comes under separate provision. The National Health Service provides for local executive councils which are quite separate from the services provided by local health authorities. It is important, in considering the consequences of this Bill, that we should bear that separation in mind. It is no good talking about such teams of doctors and welfare workers if we make it almost impossible for them effectively to co-operate through the services which are to be provided by the new boroughs.
A plain and simple argument which I hope will be appreciated by the Government—it certainly should be by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is that one of the prime functions of the local executive councils is to deal with the payment of general practitioners. This means a large accountancy scheme and each organises a complete accountancy administration. A chief clerk and other senior officers are employed in each of the eight executive councils existing at present. If we leave the Bill as it is it will means that we have to have four times that number of senior administrative officials.
At present the general practitioner may find himself under two executive councils, where the geographical area of his practice does not precisely coincide with that of the local authority. If the Bill goes through as it is now drafted there may be as many as six local health authorities responsible for paying the same doctor his remuneration.
What complications that would involve in separate arrangements about Income Tax and all the necessary arrangements involved between the executive councils governing the same doctor! This situation must obviously be remedied, as it would be if the Amendment were accepted.
The most important specialty which needs full co-operation is probably that of obstetrics. Most people who are concerned with matters of health were shocked by the recent perinatal survey and the evidence given about the large number of mothers and infants dying unnecessarily in childbirth. It is in this respect that the Health Service meets its greatest difficulty, because the provisions of local government, through the local health authorities, provide for the midwife service and for ante-natal and post-natal clinics, the general practitioner and the G.P. obstetrician provide another part of the service, and the hospitals yet a third. It is only by a careful co-ordination of all those three parts of the service that we can be assured of the greatest efficiency in the matter of bringing children into the world.
Quoting again from what the doctors say:
If a midwife working in one borough is taken ill, another can be sent from another borough. Would independent boroughs be as quick to do the same? What would happen to the woman in labour? 
This refers to the present situation in the L.C.C. area. In spite of the fact that the general practitioner will have a larger number of local health authorities to deal with in respect of matters concerning organisation, it would be far better for him to have fewer executive councils, local medical committees and local obstetric provisions with which to comply.
The local executive council is also responsible for any disciplinary action. If a patient feels that she has not had the right attention from her doctor, or has called him and he has failed to attend, the National Health Service Act, 1946, provides for redress, through the local executive council. This arrangement will be made even more complicated when the woman is not certain to which local executive council she ought

to apply. What happens to a doctor who is reprimanded by one executive council and finds himself dealing with similar problems in two or three other executive council areas?
The executive council is also responsible for ensuring that a general practitioner provides an adequate service for his patients, including the right kind of surgery accommodation. In the past it has been possible for a doctor to use a lock-up shop, with hard wooden forms. What will be the position of a general practitioner if the accommodation he has provided is regarded as satisfactory by one authority but not to another? How will he know where he stands? The executive council has a right to inspect. Does it mean that if the doctor is under four or five local executive councils there will be four or five inspection teams, all visiting him and all asking for different standards?
On the death of a doctor the executive council is responsible for filling the vacancy created, yet a practice may extend over three or four different areas. How will a vacancy be advertised? Which executive council will be responsible? Again we get complication. The same applies to the very vexed question of trainee assistantship and the right to employ assistants.
In the past there have been—not by many doctors, but by a few—abuses of the system. A doctor has as an assistant a young doctor whom he more or less keeps as a paid salaried aid doing perhaps two-thirds of his work for insufficient cash and thus abuses the system which rightly used, brings doctors into general practice. The only sanction there is is that of the executive council and the local medical committee. Unless provision is made he may be in the position of having to deal with three or more bodies when his practice spreads over a wider area.
It is when we come to all the kinds of services which the G.P. is supposed to carry out that we run into difficulty if we are to maintain thirty-three local executive councils responsible for the local medical services. We had considerable discussion in Committee upstairs on the question of mental health. I regret very much that it was not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to select the Amendment in my name on that question: in


page 61, line 32, after "1946", insert:
with the exception of duties in relation to persons suffering from mental disorders imposed upon local health authorities under the National Health Service Act 1946 and the Mental Health Act 1959, which shall be the responsibility of the Greater London Council".
This impinges on the medical practitioner. We have moved away from asylums and institutions towards domiciliary care and this has thrown extra work on the general practitioner. The Mental Health Act of 1959 brings the general practitioner into responsibility with those suffering from mental disorders, yet by this change he will find it increasingly difficult to find his place in the new setup.
The same will apply in regard to welfare. The care of children often comes back to the general practitioner. The general practitioner may find a number of problems which he needs to discuss with his local committee and then find that there are three or four local medical committees. The general practitioner also needs to deal with problems of patients who require health certificates to obtain special points for a Council house application. A patient may be dealt with under one local executive council and the housing authority under the new Act will be something quite different. What kind of standing will the G.P. have in that relationship?
When it comes to the question of the services he will use and the local medical committee, he may find that he has to negotiate through the local executive council. He may have 100 per cent, coverage for home helps and midwives and other services in one area while perhaps under another authority he has only 50 per cent, coverage. He will never be quite sure of the ancillary support he can get from the local authority in his area. In the way in which the general practice area falls out it may be that on one side of the road he has certain facilities while neighbours on the other side have entirely different circumstances.
No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there is a new regulation which came into force recently designating for the general practitioner the responsibility of a principal executive council so that where three or four executive councils are involved one can be designated as being primarily responsible for that particular practice. Even

if that argument is used against streamlining what would have been a rather absurd fragmentation of the local medical services, this will inevitably lead to a great increase in paper work.
In Committee in connection with another Clause we heard that one of the purposes of this Bill was to ensure that shorter lines of communication should be provided. I shudder to think what will happen in the Health Service if there are to be thirty-three executive councils and the various problems there will be in communications between one local executive council and another, one local dental committee and another, one local pharmaceutical committee and another and all the other kinds of ancillary forces needed to be lined up to provide a comprehensive service for the patient.
10.30 p.m.
I want to make it clear to the House that in moving the Amendment I am not resisting change in the National Health Service. Indeed, I should like to see more radical changes than we now propose. I do not think it right that the National Health Service in London should be fundamentally and basically weakened, not after great consideration of the health matters involved but in order to fit into a London government plan conceived from the point of view of local government and not of the National Health Service.
I had hoped to see springing from the Act an end of the present tripartite system in the National Health Service. At the moment we have three administrations—one for the hospitals, one for the local health authorities and one for the family doctor and the general medical service. The Government have missed a great opportunity, because it would have been possible to have included in the Bill a pilot scheme which might have shown the way for other places throughout the country. They failed to do that, and all we can do now is to hold the situation as best we can in the hope that when we come to future changes in the National Health Service we shall not be so be-devilled by what has happened under the Bill as to find it difficult to move forward into a more logical and more effective pattern of service for the person who needs that service at a time of illness or the citizen who needs the authority's service to prevent illness.
At the moment there is a sharp division between the curative and the preventive services. The preventive services are mainly the responsibility of the local health authorities provided for in the London area in the Bill. The division which exists at the moment will be widened unless we can maintain some form of the present organisation of the local executive councils and the local medical committees. This is an opportunity of doing so. I realise that even if he rejects my Amendment the Minister can later make a move by order within the terms of the Act to bring together a number of authorities for specific purposes. But this is not sufficient. There is a good deal of uncertainty throughout the London area among general practitioners, doctors employed in the local health authorities and other doctors, among dispensing chemists, and among dentists, who are not certain what will happen as a result of the Bill.
I beg the Government to accept the Amendment, which would clear up the situation and make it plain that they will preserve that which is best in the present system. They should not attempt so to fragment it that it will not only bring a period of uncertainty but inevitably will bring distress to patients and make the constructive task of healing the sick even more difficult.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I endeavoured to follow the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) closely, but I confess that he confused me with his interchange of the terms "local health authority" and "National Health Service Executive Committee". Unless I have misread the Bill. I think that he interchanged their functions and applied criticisms, which he may feel strongly, against the new provision for local health authorities which equally applied to National Health Service Executive Committees.
If my memory serves me, there are 137 National Health Service Executive Committees. Their function is to deal with the provision made by doctors, dentists, and those in the ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. They are appointed by the Ministry. They have never been under the local authority and, to the best of my knowledge, they will not come under the local authority for the

purposes of the Bill. There may be some question of nomination, but they are not linked to the local authority and they are not local authority committees. Nor have they ever been such.
For these reasons the hon. Member, however unwittingly, was misleading the House in thinking that the Bill made any alterations in the functions of the National Health Service committees. As I understand it, they will still be appointed by the Ministry, as they have always been. These are quite distinct from the local health authority committees which deal with child welfare clinics, dental services and so on. The executive committees, on the other hand, have never been appointed by local authorities. They are bodies formed of the four professional sections. They appoint 12 members. Other members are appointed from the lay side, while some are appointed from local authorities. There is an independent chairman and there are 25 members in all. There are 137 of these committees covering the country, but they have never been a local authority function.

Mr. Pavitt: It is not a question of my having misunderstood the difference between the local health authority and the local executive council. Under the 1946 Act the area is' designated as the same area as that of the local health authority. If the Bill is passed in its present form, then, inevitably, the area of the local executive council will then be the area of the local health authority, which means 33 and not six.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I think the hon. Member is wrong, because if it were merely a question of them being local authorities we could not have reached the number of 137 health executives by authorities amalgamated together to provide a medical health executive. As I say, if this were not so the figure would not be 137.

Mr. Reynolds: Canterbury is merged with Kent and Carlisle is merged with the area which surrounds it. I cannot remember its name. This has been done by voluntary arrangement since 1948.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Since it was one of the jobs of the then Parliamentary Secretary to deal closely with National Health executive committees I think, with great respect to


the hon. Member, that having had six years in that office I have some experience of these matters. I think the hon. Member will find that he is wrong.
It is for this reason that the criticism expressed by the hon. Member for Willesden, West is ill-founded. There is no question of the functions of these members or committees or of the London Executive Committee, which is appointed by the Minister and not by the L.C.C., being broken up or fragmented into 33 areas. I am sure that I am right and that my right hon. Friend would interrupt me if I am wrong.
As to the local health authority services, certainly the large county authorities—and I am sure that this would apply in London—are divided into divisional areas for their services of maternity, child welfare clinics, dental and other services. Regarding Kent, the very area which was designated and operated with considerable local autonomy in north west Kent was in fact, exactly the area which will be Borough No. 19; Dagenham, Penge, Orpington, Bromley and the whole of Chislehurst; save that it will actually be a half of Chislehurst. On the northern side the areas grouped together will now be grouped into Borough No. 18.
Local districts or divisional committees are already operating under the Kent county authority and the officers who have worked in these services—in ambulances and various other services ranging from child welfare clinics to dental services—are divided under the authority into areas, with the exception of half of my constituency. Under the new arrangement the same officers will do that same work under what will be a division of Kent. That division, virtually in toto, will be Bromley; Borough No. 19.

Mr. Reynolds: They go into Greater London.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: They may go into Greater London, but, for instance, there is an ambulance division which is sectionalised to the Kent County at Beckenham, Penge, Orpington, Bromley and Chislehurst. That will now go over to the London service, but at the moment it is Kent. It already operates as a subsection of the Kent

service. It will go over as a group, operating as it is operated sectionally for the north-west division as a functioning unit.
The county services have been divided into areas. In fact, the area for nearly every service is exactly that which is now going into the county group. I do not think it is fair to suggest therefore that the proposals outlined in the Bill will cause fragmentation or any wrecking of the services. In many cases —and, I am sure, equally in other borough areas—the divisional sections that have operated under county authority will continue their same functions and duties and, in many cases, within identically their same bounds.

Mr. M. Stewart: The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) has misunderstood nearly everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said. The point at issue is fairly straightforward and simple. We all know the difference between the functions of an executive council and a local health authority. The Minister is here and can correct me if I am wrong, but the point is that under the National Health Service Act the normal rule is for the area of the executive council to be the area of the local health authority. It is possible to avoid that by agreements made between the local health authorities, but that is the normal rule— the rule with which one starts.
It follows from that, I think, and I understood this to be the burden of my hon. Friend's argument—and he, too, will correct me if I am wrong—that if the Bill is passed as it stands without anything to safeguard the position we destroy certain existing local health authorities, of which the L.C.C. is one, and we make the Greater London boroughs local health authorities. If we do nothing else, therefore, we should start off with the areas for the executive councils being the areas of those 32 local health authorities. One might be able subsequently to correct that by agreements between those authorities, but that is not what we would start with. That, surely, is not a satisfactory position. I do not think that anyone would really want to see the new set-up having


to start off with these 32 different areas each an area of a separate executive council.
My hon. Friend has provided a way of remedying that defect. It seems to me possible for the Minister to say that there is another way of remedying it, which is by order made under Clause 81. If he argues that, we shall be interested to hear why he thinks that to be a better way. He may be right—we are prepared to suspend judgment until we have heard him—but we cannot agree with the right hon. Lady's suggestion that there is not a problem here. It is undoubtedly right that the Bill as it stands, unaltered by this Amendment and unsupplemented by any order under Clause 81, would result in there being, to start with, as many executive councils as there are local health authorities under the Bill. That is an unsatisfactory position. That was what my hon. Friend was saying, and the right hon. Lady did not seem to grasp what was at issue at all.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I should like to be brief, because we wish to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health on this point. As I understand the situation, changing a local health authority's area does not affect the existence or the area of the corresponding executive council at the moment. The area of that executive council has been defined in the past by reference to the boundaries of the local health authority's area, but its ground will still remain even if the local health authority disappears. The extent of the two bodies is not dependent one upon the other.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) for raising the point, because a little clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary will be useful. In raising the matter, however, the hon. Member made very heavy weather of the problems and difficulties which, if he will allow me to say so, I do not think will exist. At present, it so happens, if a doctor is practising at a point where four executive councils meet he will be already coping with the sort of problems which the hon. Member has indicated. The same thing is true where a doctor's practice extends over the area of four local authorities. We

shall not be creating any new problem by the passage of the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Member concede that doctors who are in that situation are always having great difficulties and that this is one of the matters which the medical profession is always raising at B.M.A. annual meetings in an effort to find ways and means of avoiding it? The Bill will multiply these situations.

Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Member's speech gave the impression that we were here creating something new and chaotic which was to be avoided, whereas he will find that over the whole country this is a general pattern which has been achieved not only in the London area but in other parts of the country by common sense and the creation of a principal executive council. I agree with the hon. Member, however, in saying that I am sure that the Greater London Council is too big to be a single executive council area whereas the 33 boroughs are probably too small to be each such an area. What will be called for, though not here and now in the Bill, is a review by the Minister of Health of the areas of executive councils to work out a new pattern for them not only for the Greater London area but possibly elsewhere, which my right hon. Friend can do under existing powers.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member says that the boroughs will be too small, and he is right, but it is contrary to the arguments we have had so far on other parts of the Bill. Will he tell us why he thinks that they will be too small?

Sir H. Linstead: It will take too long to explain, but it is probably for the same reasons as the hon. Member thinks that they are too small. We might leave the matter there.
I would make a specific reference, merely to illustrate my point, to the new Schedule which the hon. Member for Willesden, West proposes and which we are discussing with this Amendment. I would agree that the Inner London Area should remain under one executive council, but on the next three proposals in that Schedule I would have grave doubt on whether it is desirable that counties no longer within the Greater London Area should have their executive councils spreading into the Greater


London Area. I do not think, however, that this sort of problem should be dealt with by means of a solution fixed into the Schedule of a Statute. That would be a mistake. I am sure that it would be right for the Minister of Health to look at the problem when the Bill is passed and decide under his existing powers how best the problem can be solved.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I appreciate that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) put down his Amendment to seek information about the Government's intentions concerning executive councils. The effect of the Amendment and the accompanying Schedule would be to impose a certain pattern of executive council administration on the Greater London area. As the hon. Member said, it would preserve the existing London, Kent and Middlesex executive council areas and extend the existing Essex and Surrey executive council areas to include the three county boroughs at present within the geographical boundaries of those counties. It would, therefore, reduce the existing number of executive councils in the London area by three.
As the hon. Member made plain, those executive councils are an integral part of the National Health Service. They play an important role. They are responsible for the general medical services. They make arrangements with medical practitioners to provide the personal medical services in their area, provide general oversight of practice arrangements through the co-operation with the local medical committees with somewhat similar arrangements for the dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical professions and are responsible for the general administration and payment for these services.
There is nothing in the Bill which says that there shall be an executive council in each of the new London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), with his customary skill, went to the heart of the matter. In general, it is desirable to avoid having more executive councils in the Greater London area than is administratively necessary.
The hon. Member's proposal is unacceptable to the Government, for three

reasons. If I may develop my argument, I think the hon. Member will see that there is no great difference between us. First, it is premature at this stage to settle the future pattern of executive council administration in the Greater London area, because a number of important interests still have to be consulted. My right hon. Friend has not yet concluded those consultations and is not yet ready to make his provisional proposals in relation, to this matter.
The second reason is that it is not necessary in the Bill to make an express provision of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind. My right hon. Friend has ample powers under Clause 81 and under Section 31 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, to make the necessary arrangements by an order which would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Any order that my right hon. Friend must make under Section 31 inviting two or more local health authority areas to get together for local executive council purposes does not require the consent of each local health authority. In other words, my right hon. Friend has complete powers to provide the kind of arrangement which the circumstances in the Greater London area require.
The third reason why the hon. Member's proposal is unacceptable is that even if the pattern proposed in the new Schedule were the best arrangement for the immediate futures—I am not for one moment saying that it is—the definition of areas in the Schedule would prevent any rearrangement that might be found desirable, except a combination of these large areas. I cannot think that it is satisfactory to lay down an inflexible pattern before consultation has been completed.
It is true that Section 31 of the National Health Service Act provides that an executive council shall be constituted for the area of every local health authority. That point has been made, and it is that which led the hon. Member for Willesden, West into the error of thinking that 33 executive councils will be created in London.

Mr. M. Stewart: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? This is really crucial. Will he tell us, failing my hon. Friend's Amendment or an order under Clause 81


or an order made by the Minister under section 31 of the National Health Service Act, what would happen? Are we right in thinking that unless some special provision is made to the contrary the creation of so many health authorities would necessarily result, failing any other action by the Minister, in the existence of so many executive councils?

Mr. Braine: I do not think that can be read into what I have said. I have acquainted myself with the question, I am well aware of the anxieties that have been expressed and I am anxious to remove them.
As I was saying, my right hon. Friend has the power to make an order combining two or more local health authorities for the purpose. True, the powers available to my right hon. Friend would, as I said in Standing Committee on 7th March, permit a very wide range of possibilities. They could range from virtual preservation of the existing councils through a large number of possible combinations of the areas of the local health authorities in the Greater London area. But clearly it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to formulate proposals for discussion with the various interests involved until it has been possible for him to have some preliminary consultations to ascertain what might be the view of the local health authorities when they are established and also the professional interests involved.
The reason why I am emphasising the importance of the local health authorities is that they appoint one-third of the members of the local executive councils, and it is obviously important that their view should be taken fully into account. The new authorities do not yet exist. Accordingly, we propose to consult the joint committees of the existing local authorities, for which provision is made in Clause 83.
I can, therefore, give the Committee a firm undertaking that no decision will be taken with regard to the future pattern of administration without the formulation of provisional proposals for discussion and consultation with all the interests concerned, including the professions—the very people about whom the hon. Gentleman has been speaking tonight. Therefore, I think that it can be assumed that common sense will prevail in making an arrangement of this kind.
The existing executive councils will continue to function up till 1st April, 1965. Thereafter, the new councils, which may or may not cover the same area, will come into existence. I would hope, therefore, in the light of the assurance that I have given, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. My right hon. Friend will take very much into account what has been said here tonight in formulating his proposals and in his consultations.

Mr. Reynolds: What we have been asked to rely on is the common sense of right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, and that, to be honest, is asking a little too much in the present state of affairs. Even if one looks at the way in which this Bill has been handled—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is not that what the late Mr. Bevan did in the National Health Service Act? Why does the hon. Gentleman want to change that?

Mr. Reynolds: I was referring to the present occupants of the Treasury Bench and the circumstances in which they find themselves, which are very different from those which existed then.

Sir H. Linstead: I thought the party opposite expected a change.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not know what is going to happen between now and 1st April, 1965, in that respect; nor does the House know what is going to happen as far as the executive councils are concerned. I think we are entitled as a House to rather more information—

Mr. Braine: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that. I was not seeking to speak at any great length; I could have spelt it out in greater detail. When I said that my right hon. Friend will seek consultations with those concerned, I am including the professions. I am including those who run the executive councils today. I am, of course, considering the existing committees, set up under the appropriate Clause, of the existing authorities. This decision will not be taken in a vacuum, and the hon. Gentleman has no right to make a charge that an assurance that I have given from this Bench—

It being Eleven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

11.0 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: On 27th February last, I asked the following Question of the Minister of Transport,
whether he will exercise his powers under Section 27 (7) of the Transport Act, 1962, to obtain from the British Railway boards the mileage of disused lines in each region at the vesting date; and if he will make a statement".
To this my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied, "No. Sir". I then asked whether "No" meant that the Minister would not exercise his power to obtain this information or that he considered that this was a day-to-day matter with which he could not deal.
The answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave me was one which, unfortunately, raised the question of your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and those of the Minister in regard to Questions relating to the nationalised industries. He said that it was not normal to obtain information from a nationalised board on day-today matters—that is, of course, a matter for the Minister—but he went to add—
except when it raises matters of urgent public importance".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1963; Vol. 672, c. 1244.]
This, Mr. Speaker, is a matter for you to rule upon.
Realising that this was a situation which appeared to be open to misunderstanding, I am glad to have an opportunity to have an authoritative statement from the Leader of the House. The importance of these matters to a number of Ministries is obvious, but I propose to confine myself to the Ministry of Transport in my observations tonight.
Erskine May, the 16th Edition, at page 361, makes clear your position, Mr. Speaker, in regard to Questions about nationalised industries. If a Question has been asked and the Minister has refused to answer that Question, the Table will refuse to allow any Questions in the same category. Also, if a Question is one of urgent public importance, you, Mr. Speaker, may in your discretion allow it to be answered.
This, I think, is reasonably clear, but the position of the Minister is more com-

plex, in spite of the scope of Questions having been laid down by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, when he was Leader of the House, on 25th February, 1960, reported in Volume 618 of HANSARD. I accept at once that it is undesirable to have asked Questions of a day-to-day character, such as why the 7.45 from London was a quarter of an hour late in arriving at Aldershot, or something like that, but there are cases when it seems to be doubtful whether they come within the limits which the Leader of the House laid down in 1960. For that purpose I think I ought to quote what he said on that occasion:
Ministers would, of course, answer for the matters which the industries are required by Statute to lay before them, and for appointments, finance and matters on which they themselves have statutory powers or duties.
Perhaps I ought also to read the terms of Section 27 (7) of the Transport Act, 1962:
Each Board shall furnish the Minister with such returns, accounts and other information with respect to their property and activities, and the property and activities of any company which is their subsidiary, as he may from time to time require.
My submission is that this is not a day-to-day matter dealing with disused railway lines and that the Question is a proper one because it invokes the statutory powers which are given in Section 27 (7) to require information about disused railway lines.
In saying that the leader of the House was repeating what had been laid down as long ago as 1951, but he did go on to say:
In addition, they may from time to time be concerned with other questions of broad policy affecting the industries.
That was an additional category under which it might be possible to ask further Questions in regard to the nationalised industries. Even if the view I have expressed, that that was a statutory power which was possessed by the Minister, is not accepted, the amount of disused railway lines now and in the future must surely be a matter of broad policy. Particularly, I would submit, is this so when I go on to read the final words which were used by the Leader of the House:
We shall try to interpret general policy in as broad a manner as we can.
The problem which arises in this case is one which surely will arise in the


future in an acute form when the question of disused railway lines may be described as a day-to-day matter, though in any other sense they may involve broad questions of policy in view of the social and political consequences of the closing of railway lines as proposed by Dr. Beeching.
The Leader of the House then went on to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who intervened.
I will take up the right hon. Gentleman's invitation"—
that is, to define general policy—
and see whether, at a later date, we could carry this further. I do not think that I could go further today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 577, 580 and 581.]
My object tonight is to invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to accept that my question on this occasion was not a day-to-day matter which encroached upon the managerial functions of the Board, but was one for which the Minister of Transport was responsible under Statute. If the Chief Secretary of State's observation in 1960, amounting to a sympathetic understanding of the positions, means what it says, I submit that mine was a proper question to ask of the Minister of Transport in view of the powers conferred on him by Section 27 (7) of the Transport Act.
I hope also that the Leader of the House will define more particularly the words "broad general policy", because it seems to me that, as the position stands, if someone during the course of subsequent closing of railway lines is minded to ask a question as to whether a particular line should or should not be closed, that might be considered a day-to-day matter or one of "broad general policy". It is with a view to ensuring some degree of certainty, at any rate, that I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise this matter.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am glad to be able to join in this debate because many of us on both sides of the House share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should look again at the whole question of what sort of Questions may be asked of the Ministers in charge of publicly-owned industries. As hon.
Members opposite know, I firmly believe in State ownership of certain industries—certainly all the basic industries—but at the same time it is essential that Parliament should have a much greater measure of control than it has at the moment.
It is all very well to say that once a year we get an opportunity to raise wide ranging matters, but my experience is that the points we raise are usually out of date, for by the time we debate the annual reports of the nationalised industries all their significance has already gone.
I am afraid that my noble Friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was an arch-culprit in this. If he had had his way we would have been allowed to ask only one or two Questions on the nationalised industries. His attitude was that everything should be left to the managements and that we should not interfere with them. But I think that it is wrong that hon. Members should be stopped by the Table from putting down Questions on any matter concerning a publicly-owned industry for which this House has final responsibility.
It is said that if the rule were otherwise the Order Paper would be cluttered up with Questions, and the hon. Member gave an example of a question as to why a train ran fifteen minutes late. That might be the case at the beginning, but I am sure that after a time the commonsense of hon. Members would assert itself and that the vast majority of us would not ask questions on day-to-day or trivial matters.
After all, we are able to ask about minor details of the hospital service. I could put down a Question about the equipment of my local hospital, but I would not do so. Most hon. Members, with the exception of one or two rather odd ones, would not abuse the right to ask questions.
I cannot see how we can go on defending a position where, on certain matters which are the concern of this House, we cannot ask Questions of the Ministers responsible but have the privilege of writing to the chairmen of the boards. I do not like to have to write to the chairmen of boards. I would prefer to have the right to ask a Minister a Question and give him an opportunity of


answering. At the end of the day it would be best for the boards of publicly-owned industries to know that Parliament acts as a general watchdog.
In spite of all the difficulties that might arise, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this proposal. I can speak for many of my hon. Friends—although not for my party as a whole—in saying that we would welcome a change in this direction.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I warmly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has said. For nearly four years during the war I had to answer Questions about the transport industries, and for nearly two years I had to answer Questions about the fuel and power industries, which had then been nationalised. I found, in answering 343 Questions about gas, electricity and coal in four months, that it was extremely advantageous to all concerned to have the Questions put. I made it a principle to give as much information as I possibly could in reply to the Questions. I am sure that it helped the industries, and that it was in the national interest.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am sure that the time has come to review the provisional self-denying ordinance made when these industries were first nationalised, and when this House, under the inspiration of my noble Friend, Lord Morrison, gave away the right of Members to ask Questions about the day-today working of the industries—as my hon. Friend reminded us. My hon. Friend referred to the Ministry of Health, for which the Minister concerned has full responsibility, largely because our late colleague, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, believed strongly in the principle of Ministerial responsibility for publicly-owned services and industries, and insisted on being responsible. I only wish the same had been true of other Ministers related to the various nationalised industries.
I remember asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) Questions about trains which ran late. Of course a Member would not do that if a train ran late once, but if a train ran late month after month it might be worth putting down a Question on the Order Paper.
I support what has been said by hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) raised the subject.

11.17 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said at the beginning of his short intervention that—just for the record—he believed firmly in the extension of public ownership. Just for the record, and equally firmly, I do not; but that is not what we are arguing about tonight.
I suppose half a dozen Ministers are affected by this suggestion, and any one of them could have answered. But I thought it appropriate that I should do so, as Leader of the House, because we are fundamentally concerned with the rights of Members in connection with the expenditure of public money and their right to ask Questions and criticise the Government of the day. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) for raising the point.
He started by asking a question about his own Question, to which he said that he had got an Answer which he did not like, and then he proceeded to the general argument. I will work the other way round and refer first to the fount of experience in this regard—Erskine May. In the latest edition, at page 356, it says:
Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible.
It goes on to apply this to the nationalised industries and says, at page 361, that where a Minister has responsibilities in specific matters set out in certain statutes relating to particular industries,
Questions are admissible on such matters.
There are two general points. First, there is the power to give directions in the national interest. This applies to all Ministers with responsibilities over nationalised industries in different forms. It is a reserve power—as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will agree—and one that should be used sparingly. I am not convinced by his argument about the control of the railways in wartime, when


he had a particular responsibility, for the exact reason given by the Minister of Transport when he replied, on 23rd March, 1960, to an intervention by the right hon. Gentleman directed to that point. Of course, hon. Members from all sides of the House can ask my right hon. Friends whether they will not make directions on this or that subject in the national interest.
The other point referred to by Erskine May is the power to require information from the nationalised boards. This is equally a common form provision, but it cannot be taken as requiring Ministers to pass the information on to Members in answer to Parliamentary Questions. Here we come to the most difficult question of all, because what has happened is that successive Governments over the years have built up a sort of case law in this matter. This is something to which the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) rightly referred. He may remember his phrase—" infection by category"—when my predecessor as Leader of the House was putting an argument to the House to which I shall come in a moment. This question of infection by category means—and here again I quote Erskine May—that it
prevents the admission to the Order Paper of alt future questions dealing with the class of matters dealt with by the questions to which an answer was refused.
One can see, therefore, that this can be a snowballing process and can have a considerable effect in restricting the rights of hon. Members. This is the point with which I am particularly concerned. To complete this side of the story, I should add that you, Mr. Speaker, by a Ruling of yours, made an exception for matters of urgent public importance, the Standing Order No. 9 type of question.
The Erskine May we are talking about is some years old, although it is kept as closely up to date as possible. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary, when he was Leader of the House three years ago, made the latest Government pronouncement on the whole question on 25th February, 1960. The part which was meant to be a slight relaxation of the previous rule was put in these terms by my right hon. Friend:
… they may"—
that is, Ministers—
from time to time be concerned with other questions of broad policy affecting the indus-

tries. There is no hard-and-fast formula by which these matters could be identified and opened to Questions in the House.…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 577.]
We regarded that as a slight relaxation of the rule and the problem which confronts us tonight is how to translate that good intention into perhaps more practical terms, because it is extremely difficult, as I am sure the House understands. I make it plain that I am speaking partly because my hon. Friend has raised the point in this way and partly because, although this question arises most frequently in transport, what I say, mutatis mutandis, applies to most of the nationalised industries.
The question is whether this new area can be more closely defined. I come to the particular Question of which my hon. Friend complained. As he knows, the Question was put down for 27th February of this year, and it was about the mileage of disused lines. Let us take this point. It is not in argument that this information was available. Nobody disputes that. No discourtesy was meant to my hon. Friend by the Minister. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees. The Minister, indeed, wrote to him—a point which I think we should put on record—to explain why he had taken this view. What the Minister said, if I may paraphrase his letter, was, "Of course I could get this information but I do not think that this is the sort of information that I should get and should transmit in this way to the House." The question comes down to whether—and I take the particular example for the moment—this is a proper matter of day-to-day administration or not. In this case I am quite certain that the Minister's responsibilities were not involved and that it would lay the door open to misunderstanding and criticism in the House to a disproportionate extent if this particular Question was allowed.
It is true, of course, that taking the 1962 Transport Act—and I am talking only on this subject—the Minister has clearly denned statutory responsibilities on closures of passenger lines. This is a fact and, presumably—in this connection—whether or not there may be Questions is a matter for the Table and there can clearly be Adjournment debates. But this is a different matter


because this is a Question about what happens to the line after it has been closed.
Although the Minister has a responsibility before this, I think that the responsibility at this point is clearly that of the Board, and that of the Board alone, because the responsibility of deciding what to do with the disused line is a matter of management for the Board; and whether it disposes of it or uses it for temporary sidings, or whatever else it may be, that is nothing to do with the Minister. These were the considerations that led to the decision of which my hon. Friend complains.
Let us ask ourselves whether that decision, which led my right hon. Friend not to give an Answer which he could have collected and acted as a post office, as it were, for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, was right. In my view it was right, for this reason; if one admits those Questions one goes the whole way towards admitting a whole series of Questions on ordinary day-today administration—as in the example mentioned by other speakers; the quality of the service, whether or not a given train was late, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot accepted that it was wrong on these matters of punctuality or otherwise of the service to ask Questions.
However, I think that the hon. Member for Barking made some dissent from this view. The only comment I wish to make on the specific point which has given rise to this Adjournment debate is that if this sort of Question is permitted I think that the door will be open very wide indeed.

Mr. Driberg: The Leader of the House quoted from Erskine May earlier in his reply. Does not that quotation start by saying that Ministers can be questioned about the "public affairs with which they are connected "?

Mr. Macleod: Perhaps, but the Erskine May doctrine is for 1957, so that I think the quotation we must look more closely at is the one of my predecessor, the Leader of the House, to which I referred.
I now come to the key matter. The difficult question is to strike a balance between three things. The first is the

right of hon. Members to obtain information and criticise the Government especially when the expenditure of public money is involved. The second is the need to allow the nationalised industries to be free of excessively detailed inquiry into ordinary administration. Certainly we attach great importance to this, obviously more than hon. Members opposite. The third is the ultimate ministerial responsibility for the industry.
It was anxiety on the second—the need to protect the industry against excessive investigation of this sort—that was the reason for the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot received. But this does not mean that hon. Members are denied information. In the specific instance of the Question of my hon. Friend, the argument turned not on whether the information should be provided, but what was the right way of giving that particular information.
I believe that the First Secretary's statement of three years ago is as good a guide as we can contrive for an admittedly difficult problem of definition. However, we are anxious to safeguard the rights of hon. Members. I would like to study what has been said in the light of the views put to me in the debate tonight, particularly concentrating on what I was asked to do; that is, to consider the words "broad general policy" and see if we can find a way in which it may conceivably be possible to carry this phrase a little further.
We must draw the line somewhere and, on the whole, I believe—both in the instance quoted tonight and in the general approach of my right hon. Friends—that we have drawn it in the right place.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: By the leave of the House, we all agree with the Leader of the House in the proposition that we can now obtain more information about the nationalised industries than we can, for example, about the big private monopolies.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.